 That concludes topical questions. The next item of business is a statement by Keith Brown on update on the management of transgender individuals within prison custody. The cabinet secretary will take questions at the end of his statement and so there should be no interventions or interruptions. I call on Keith Brown up to 10 minutes cabinet secretary. Thank you, Presiding Officer. There has been, of course, significant attention on the management of transgender prisoners over the course of the last week and I'd like to take this across the broad we are special well and castchees. Dawn er nifro we did, I would like to acknowledge the victims in those cases. We should never forget the victims of crime. I am sure that is true of everybody in this chamber and in that regard I was very impressed with the comments made by our contributor at time for reflection who said we should focus on what really matters I am recognised you would be new worth of each individual. I am very conscious of the importance of maintaining public confidence in the justice system rydym hyrda. That reason, I'm keen that that discussion around that issue is as calm and though on-fact available. The things that we say in here have real impacts on people and in the context of the criminal justice system, those are very often vulnerable people. We must not allow the legitimate questions that are being asked to fuel the view that transwomen somehow pose an inherent threat to women when that is not the case. Mynd i, mae'n ddweud yn rhan i gwrsiau ac yn rhan o ffraeg o'r prinsanareddau ar ddod i'r gael amser. Felly, rydw i'n ddweud, ac rydw i'n ddweud, mae'n ddweud yn rhan o'r rhan o'r rhan o'r rhan o rhan o'r rhan o'r rhan o'r rhan o'r rhan o'r prinsanareddau ar gyfer o'r prinsanareddau eich cyfnod o rhywpeth, oedd yn ddweud 20 rhai o rhan o'r 7,367 prinsanareddau. Mae'n ddweud ond ond mae'n cyfrubwyr. Yng Nghymru yw'r un'r 17 oes y wneud. Mae ymi'r maen nhw'n mynd i'r cael eu cyfrwyrau yn y gyffredigdau yn cyfrwyr y maen nhw. Felly, i Allanedd Pwyllfaenau, mae'n dwi gydag sydd gywedieithio pa'r Cymysgatwr Cymreidiau a chyfrwyr whiffadau fod yn gynhyrchu ar hyn agmaeith, ddiwethaf cyfnodau cyfrwyr nhw'n cyfrwyr fe sgulio yw'r ym disturb ymgynghoriadau neu mewn cymrydion, mewn gwneud cyfrwyr o'r cyfrwyr cymdeithasol, diwethaf, oedd oedd oedd oedd oedd oedd oedd oedd oedd oedd yn gweithio i gael prescribech, a oedd oedd oedd oedd oedd oedd oedd oedd. The existing SPS process supplies equally to the arrangements within which the SPS makes decisions about transgender prisoners. Their gender identity and gender reassignment policy, adopted in 2014, in dialogue with the relevant stakeholders, including criminal justice and inequalities organisations, A penderfyniad i gyd yn ffordd i gynnig oedd yn Myndidol yn rhanig i'w prydyniau sydd agor ei gweld gyda'r hawddol i gyd yn gyfosiaeth iddyn nhw, a chymser i eich rysg acesbydd bernadau oedd y ffritigol yn mwyaf gwyllwch. Rydyn ni na'n mynd i chi, diwylliannolau rhesymau oedd gennymau o'r pardoned ac oedd yn gweithio'r pardoned a bair. Rydyn ni na'n mynd i chi, diwylliannolau oedd gennymau o'r pardoned a bair o'r pardoned a bair o'r pardoned. there's no automatic right for trans women to serve a sentence in a femail prison or indeed for a trans man to be in the male estate. The prison's service retains the ability to place people in a prison that may not correspond to its identified gender. Instead, they make the decisions based on a rigorous and robust individualized interest assessment, taking account of all the relevant factors, including the safety of individual and of other prisoners i ddweud yn cyfnodol. Rwy'n ddweud yn gweld yn ddweud yn y gymwyl iddyn nhw gŷtodd, mae'r ddweud o'r ddweud o'r ddweud hynny yn ddweud yn cyfnodol. Felly, mae'n ddweud yn rhan o'r cyfrifol ar gyfer y Gwyrddol a'u spes sy'n ddweud yn cyfrifol ar gael o'r ddweud. Ond, dyna'r cyfrifol yn gallu cystafol yw'r ddweud gweld yn cyfrifol o'r ddweud ac yn cyfrifol ar gyfer y cwysylltu. Maes y mae diddour a i gael o fewn i ddweud wrth ddannu rhaglachol o'r tuail a'r ddod, iddyn nhw'r gwrthig iechyd, ond chi'n ddegyntiaeth arna wedi gweld ddod o hyn a ddechrau'r llaw hon i ddweud i g Answer Byrdd. Mae'r ddweud i ddweud i gyrtaeth Cysybodaeth, Waith geson y cyfransgladau hynny, a gwnddyn nhw'r ddyn nhw'r ddweud i ddweud i gyrtaeth cyfransgladau hynny? ac mae'n hyn oedd eich ddau i'r rôl ysgafodd ar gyfer y prifysgol gyda'r rai cymryd yn cymryd i'r Rhys-Thyrm Prysgol, ac mae'n cymryd i'r Rhys-Thyrm Prysgol. Mae'r ddau i'r Rhys-Thyrm Prysgol ar gyfer y prysgol, a'r ddau i'r Rhys-Thyrm Prysgol i'r polisi ac i'r pradysgol. Ond mae'r ddau i'r prysgol wedi gwybod, mae'n ddau i'r prysgol i'r ddau i'r maen nhw that the SNP was, of course, aware of ministers' views. It would be frankly bizarre if they were not aware of ministers' views, but it remained an operational decision for the SNP based on the information available to it. I should also make clear, given that this issue has been raised, that the decision to initially accommodate this prisoner in HMP, delight and veil, while the risk assessment was done, was made without ministerial involvement nor indeed awareness and in line with existing procedures. The other individual identified arwadhoddiad yn ei ddaeth yn yr hyn. Mae oedd yn ni wedi gwasanaeth, ac mae i ni'n gwneud i ddweud i gael ei ddatblygu a'u ddweud o'rיהilioedd ym yn ei ddod i ddweud i'r siwr ddefnyddio ar gyfer y G Aimolau Llywodraeth i a i niw, mae'n rhoi cais y cwmaint o bwysig yn y maen nhw'n mwyaf ar y cael cael cael peirion y SPS. Yn helpul ddiwedd, mae SPS' gwrdd ystyried cyrraedd ac yn ysgrifprisyniadion gyda'r cyfnod o'r sgwrt i'r ddwyllgor a'r ddweud. Felly, mae'n cydweithio gan fwyllgor amser yn ddiwethaf ar gaelais ioweithio i wedi'i dweud yn 2022, ac rwy'n oedd bod athneud sefydig y prydysyniadion a'r ddweud honno a'r ddiwethaf. The draft revised policy will be independently assessed by experts in women affected by trauma and violence. The review is expected to be completed in the coming months and we will ensure that Parliament is kept informed given the strong interest that there is in this issue. SPS is also now undertaking an urgent lesson-learns review in relation to the case of Islay Bryson, with any learning to be applied immediately to existing transgender cases in the prison estate and any coming into custody. That review will report to the SPS chief executive at the end of this week, and I will write to the criminal justice committee to update on the outcome of this next week. The timescales for any subsequent action will depend on the findings. Until those reviews are complete, no transgender person already in custody with any history of violence against women, including sexual offences against women, will be moved from the male to the female estate. In addition, no newly convicted or amended transgender prisoner with any history of violence against women will be placed in the female estate. For clarity, this definition includes any history of violence and violence, including sexual offences. It is felt that, following through with robust risk assessment and taking account of all relevant factors, there are still exceptional circumstances in particular cases that will require the approval of ministers. That is not dissimilar to the situation that was announced last week in England and Wales. The prison service will seek ministerial approval for those particular cases, which will not change the general position that decisions on the management and accommodation of prisoners within the prison estate have been and will continue to be operational matters for the Scottish prison service. That is in keeping with the delegated authority under which the prison service operates and in line with the public interests in that matter. Those arrangements will allow for exceptional circumstances to be considered and agreed whilst the reviews are in progress. It is right that the actions that we have taken will continue to ensure that we respect and protect the rights of trans individuals wherever they are in society, including within our prisons, and that we continue to consider and protect the safety of all prisoners and staff. In conclusion, the actions that I have announced on which the SPS are progressing aim to provide immediate assurance in the context of the public concern raised by the two recent cases. The outcome of the reviews being progress will ensure that any immediate lessons are learned from the issues that have been identified by those cases. At the wider review of the prison service's current policy on the management of trans prisoners and the subsequent application of this policy, take account of relevant factors, including input from experts in women affected by trauma and violence. Ultimately, it is vital that future decisions about the location and management of prisoners continue to be based on thorough risk assessment, drawing on the expertise and input of relevant professionals, with the priority of ensuring that all individuals that work in our prisons and that people in the care of our prison staff are kept safe. That will always be the absolute focus of the Scottish Prison Service. The cabinet secretary will now take questions on the issues that were raised in his statement. I intend to allow around 20 minutes for questions after which we will move on to the next item of business. I will be grateful if all members who wish to ask a question were to press their request-to-speak buttons now. I call Russell Finlay. Thank you, Presiding Officer. They say that a week is a long time in politics, while only six days ago I asked Keith Brown about a double rapist in a women's prison and he stood right there and backed the decision to send this sex offender to Cardinville. Less than 24 hours later, Nicola Sturgeon was forced into a humiliating U-turn and the rapist was rightly removed. What I want to know is this. Now that Keith Brown tells us today that ministers have no awareness of this rapist's move to Cardinville, will he explicitly state that none of his officials had prior knowledge and will he publish a detailed timeline of those critical events, including all correspondence? First of all, to say that what we have just said and the further assurance that was provided over the weekend does not of itself say that any different decisions would be made by the Scottish Prison Service in relation to those two cases that have been made. The changes that have been announced in terms of the public assurance that is handy does not change the Scottish Prison Service's procedures. In relation to further information, I am pretty sure that this is going to be discussed both in this chamber and in this Parliament's committee. I've mentioned already, I'm writing to the committee, I've written to the committee today and I'm writing to the committee against next week. In the meantime, I'm happy to look at the request which Russell Finlay has made and as far as it's possible, I'm happy to provide the information if I can that he's asked for. Katie Clark. As the cabinet secretary says, we are talking about a small number of people. The current policy was devised in 2014 without the experiences and interests of women being taken into account. Will the cabinet secretary now withdraw this 2014 policy, put a hold on transfers and give an undertaking that there will be a full scrutiny of the draft revised policy, including a debate in this chamber? Just on the last point that Katie Clark raises, it's not for me to schedule the business of this Parliament, but members are able to ask for that debate if that's what the Parliament was used to have. Just to say in relation to ensuring that the policy is a very legitimate point, it takes account of the interests of women, and in this case particularly women prisoners. I can say that there has been already that consultation. I think that I confirmed this last week as well. I am also aware of the responses to that consultation, both concerns raised and other aspects of that response. If it's possible for me to not breach any confidentiality in providing that information, which is quite granular information about the cases raised, then I will certainly do that. I'm happy now to give that assurance to Katie Clark that the scheduled review, which has been impact of course by the pandemic, is now at the stage of having to be considered both by legal services to make sure that it fits into the legal framework and also being discussed with the trade unions involved. You may have heard from the general secretary of the SPOA today on that issue. Those are the two remaining parts to that review. Those will be carried out, and we will bring forward the review in due course. Of course, it's then up to Parliament should it wish to decide to debate those findings. Audrey Nicholl, to be followed by Rachel Hamilton. Does the cabinet secretary agree with me, Mr Phil Fairlie, the Scottish Secretary of the Prison Officers Association, who said this morning that the prison service is best placed to make those decisions? I have, as I said before, complete confidence in the prison service's ability to deal with the operational matters. Given the public concern of the recent cases, I think that it was right to bring absolute clarity to the position and therefore to the position that has been set out to achieve that. I think that there are a number of other interesting quotes from the general secretary as well to the extent to how he says that the system has worked extremely well, providing safety for prisoners and for prison staff, for whom he has obviously a particular responsibility, and I think that it would be useful for our people to look. Those who are very concerned about the safety of prisoners' women and others will look at the comments of Phil Fairlie in the interview that he conducted today, and they would seek and I think find some real reassurance about the processes that are being followed. Ministers intervened and overturned the decision to send double-race rapist Isla Bryson to a female prison, yet an equally violent sex pest, Katie Dullartofsky, was sent to Caughton Vale last year with no questions asked. It seems that the First Minister has abandoned her self-id policy for prisons, or is it just the case that women's safety and dignity only matters to the SNP when it makes front-page news? With the First Minister that says that women's concerns are not valid and red flags for other single-sex services such as women's domestic shelters, does the cabinet secretary still back the principle of gender self-id? I do support the principle of gender self-id. I have just said it to Rachael Hamilton. Presumably she does not believe me when I tell her that the decision was not overturned. The decision was taken by the Scottish Prison Service as to where Isle of Blair was taken in terms of the male estate. That was a decision taken by the prison service. It was not taken by ministers. It is really hard to proceed on the basis of a calm and considered debate on these things if the facts are misrepresented in that way. I have confidence in the way that the prison service has conducted those and I do believe in gender self-id. Can the cabinet secretary clarify if any legislation is needed to implement any changes in policy direction following the review, or if any legislation has an impact on the review? I will just say of course that any further action will be determined on the outcome of the wider policy review and any legislative changes that are required will be taken forward if that is the case in the ordinary course of these things. I should say though that the Scottish Prison Service policies have in no way been changed or impacted by the recent passing of the Gender Recognition Reform Bill, which in any event I think as most of us know is not yet in force. Why was the convicted rape as referred in the statements, Destination Change from a Burnlyny Prison to Cortenvale Prison in the first place? Why has the Government repeatedly defended the SPS risk assessment as being robust when clearly it was not robust because as previously mentioned, these risk assessment rules allowed a pedophile to go to Cortenvale and ministers knew it because I raised it directly with them. If there are any lessons to be learned here, does the cabinet secretary agree that it is also the Government that should learn some lessons to include the safety of women when they are looking at prison policy? Can I say that in the first point that was raised by Pauline McNeill as to why was it changed from the person mentioned going from Burnlyny to Cortenvale? That is not a decision for ministers. We are not involved in that. Despite what said there on the fact, you would not be aware of that. That is between the court service and the prison service. It was also entirely consistent with the Scottish Prison Service policy from 2014 that that would be the prison. The women's estate, which is the woman identified as a woman, that would be the normal practice. At that point, as the member I am sure will be aware, many of our prisons have both male and female in the estate. That is true of a number of prisons, for example, such as Poman, Edinburgh, Greenock and Grampian. However, as the general secretary pointed out, it is only pending that no interaction with the general population is segregated, pending that assessment and then replacing what has happened in this case in the male estate. I cannot comment on further individual cases that I mentioned. I am happy to discuss offline, if it is possible, to do that with Pauline McNeill and the other case that she mentioned. However, it is the case, as I have demonstrated in relation to the wider review that has been taken forward at this stage, that the interests, the views of women in particular, have been taken forward, have been listened to, have been canvassed and will form a part of the consideration of that wider review. I think that that is just as it should be. Gillian Martin, to be followed by Alex Cole-Hamilton. Thank you, Presiding Officer. When the media takes hold of an issue, it can be difficult for us and the general public to know the factual detail behind the stories that make the headlines and, given the confidential nature of the information, difficult for those in authority to answer those claims directly. Yet, risk assessments for placement of transgender people in prison have been in place in years in Scottish prisons. The public needs to be reassured that the SPS risk assessment process for the placement of prisoners is sufficient to protect the prisoner and others in the particular unit that they are placed in. I ask the cabinet secretary if, as part of the proposed SPS policy review, there will be a review of those risk assessment processes and how will Parliament be able to scrutinise those reviews? The public should be reassured about the processes that are currently in place. In that, I would regard the track record of the prison service as demonstrating exactly how effective they are. Once again, I would go to those who have to work on the front-line relation to this, their representatives, trade union representatives, saying that they have been used to doing this over many years and do it very successfully. It is one of many challenges, of course, which they face. Just on the point that Gillian Martin raises as to whether the review will take into account that assessment, the wider review will look at the management of transgender prisoners as a whole. It will take in every element of that. In order that the Parliament, of course, can have it say that we will update the committee once that work has been finalised. Alex Cole-Hamilton to be followed by Collette Stevenson Thank you very much indeed, Presiding Officer. From the outset, the Scottish Liberal Democrats believe that anyone who has committed sexually violent crimes and who pose a risk to women should not be housed with women on the female prison estate. That is a view shared by both Scottish Trans and Crisis Scotland. That will have been a very triggering and bruising episode for survivors of sexual offences and for the trans community. That is dented public trust in prison safeguarding as well. If he is confident that the outcomes of those reviews will be enough to restore that public trust and what further steps his Government plans to take to reassure people and to heal the divisions in our society. I thank Alex Cole-Hamilton for his question and on the last point. I think that, first of all, to make sure that we can discuss those things in a civilised way with reference to the fact is very important in taking some of the heat out of this. I recognise that. I recognise also what he says about the position of the Liberal Democrats in relation to the safety of women prisons and also he cites, I think, the Scottish Women's Aid and Rape Crisis Scotland, a organisation that was being demonised until very recently, wrongly in my view. Those are perfectly legitimate concerns and that is why we took forward those initiatives. I would say that I do believe that that trust is well placed just now within the prison service, but of course it is right that you should continually monitor especially such sensitive processes and that is exactly what is happening in terms of the review. So, hopefully, that review will provide further reassurance to the public and to the organisations whom he rightly cites about the effectiveness of the processes that we have within our prisons. Does the cabinet secretary agree that it is crucial that the experience of prison staff is vital in dealing with this issue and their views, as well as their safety and wellbeing, should be a consideration in the review? I agree with that and I think that I have already said that the process that the review is following is now entering into the stage of the consultation with trade unions and it is already heard from other groups, as I have mentioned. We should never just accept that that is what prison officers are there to do and they should take, if you like, what comes their way in terms of the risk that they are confronted with. They have to be consulted. I do draw a lot of comfort from what we have heard from representatives of prison staff about the way things are currently working, but, of course, it is right, as we go forward to review those processes, that the views of prison staff, who also share some of that risk that has been described, are taken into account and listened to. I am struck by the line in the CABSEC statement that says that we must not allow the legitimate questions that are being asked to fuel the view that trans women somehow pose an inherent threat to women when that is not the case. The cabinet secretary will be aware of recent data that shows an increase in attacks against trans people. Does he agree that the weaponising of trans prisoners by certain individuals will only serve to make trans people more vulnerable, and can he comment on how we can ensure that no prisoners are made less safe because of recent events? On the last point, I think that I have tried to describe how we can try to keep prisoners safe. Of course, there is a heightened sense of that, as Maggie Chapman will understand among staff in those in our prisons just now because of that. It is also true to say that I agree that I made the comment about the fact that the position of trans women is perhaps the best way to provide that reassurance, as I have said already, to discuss those things in a calm way, which takes into account the position of how we can keep everybody safe. It is perfectly legitimate for people to question whether we are doing that effectively, although not I think that we are. However, if we can do that in such a way that recognises that the primary concern of us all is the safety of prisoners, all prisoners and the safety of the staff concerned, then we can have a debate that should not unnecessarily give rise to what Maggie Chapman rightly draws attention to, which is the increasing number of hate crimes or hate incidents against trans people, a very substantial increase. We should always be mindful of that. The cabinet secretary will be aware of an important but very pertinent amendment that I had passed and absorbed into the recent gender legislation, which placed the statutory duty on the Government to report on the placement of transgender prisoners within the prison estate. The SPS review was due last summer. We have no idea why that has been delayed and, frankly, its absence has perhaps not helped the current situation and the heat around this debate. Irrespective of what happened to that recent legislation, will the Government commit to that reporting requirement in the spirit of transparency and, in my view, an ask that requires no legislation but is a sensible and prudent ask of the Government in light of recent events? I think that, first of all, it is a sensible suggestion, but if the member will forgive me, I think that I will have the further discussion, one of which we are due to have tomorrow with the committee and see how the committee would best like that taken forward. However, I have no objection to the imprincipal point that is made. I think that, given the public interest, it is as well that, as many people as possible, they are aware of all the facts. There are some very unfounded statements circulating, for example, on social media. I think that the idea of further reporting—I have already mentioned the extent to which I am trying to keep the committee involved, having written to them today, writing again next week the commitment after the reviews to go back to the committee, so the one next week will be about the short-term review that will report this week and, of course, the wider review. Just to say on the point about the delay to the wider review, that was hugely impacted by Covid, and it is taken very seriously. I have mentioned already, as well as the analysis and consultation that has taken place. We are now at the stage of the discussion with the trade unions and with legal services to make sure that it is absolutely as it should be. I agree that it would be more useful for us to have had that now, but the pandemic cannot be wished away, and that is what has caused the delay. I think that we all agree that it is important that human rights of all parties are considered unbalanced in the placement of any prisoners. Can the cabinet secretary provide assurance that that will continue to remain at the core of considerations? I am absolutely happy to give that reassurance. Even if we want a different option, no option, but to do that in any event is the right thing to do, so I am happy to provide that assurance that, for example, the SPS is undertaking a rigorous human rights impact assessment as part of the wider policy. Whether it is the change that the UK Government announced last week, or whether it is what we are talking about, the same regard for human rights has been incorporated in those statements, and I am sure that that will be the case going forward. Cabinet secretary, forgive me, but I am struggling to understand how a male, whether he considers a trans woman or not, that is charged with rape and or other sexual offences, is not considered a threat to female prison population. Can I ask the cabinet secretary, was he fine with rapists being placed in female prisons until last week, or was he unaware of such cases, and therefore not on top of his portfolio? I have already explained to the member that the person that is being talked about here was transferred to Gordon Vale in accordance with existing policy into a segregated unit where there was not interaction with the rest of the population. It is also true to say, as I have mentioned, that we have male and females in a number of the prison estates that we have here in Scotland. Yes, I do believe that the assessment, the assessment of that threat or that risk, is carried out by people who are far more expert in this. I think that we need to hear the cabinet secretary's response, thank you. I am convinced that those people are far more expert in making that judgment than I would be, or indeed that the member would be. That is where the threat and risk should be properly assessed. Of course, as I have said, we should always continue to review that and to improve that as much as we can, and that is the purpose of the wider review. I call Neil Bibby to be followed by Michelle Thompson. We have heard the issues in relation to trans prisoners in the women's estate. The cabinet secretary has described some of the circumstances following risk assessment where a trans prisoner is more appropriately held in the men's estate. In that circumstance, can I ask what protections are in place for women and prison officers within the men's estate, and, specifically, can he confirm that the policy would not require a women's prison officer to carry out intimate searches on such a prisoner? I can say first of all that the processes of the Scottish Prison Service take into account that eventuality and also to say that really, as well as the risk assessments that I have discussed so far in relation to, in this particular case, trans women, risk assessments are day and daily part of the business of the prison service. On the day that the story broke last week, I was visiting the prison service, which was around a presentation about how they managed the different serious organised crime groups within prisons, which is a huge task, much more so than it has been in the past. I may now have serious organised crime individuals in every single prison in Scotland, so the risk assessment, whether it is a trans woman that is in the male estate or in the female estate or a trans man or other individuals, the risk assessment is carried out in accordance with what the risk that that individual may present, and they are placed according to that. I am happy to provide further information on the training in relation to the other issue that Neil Bibby has addressed, but I can assure him that it is a risk assessment undertaking for everybody entering the prison system. The cabinet secretary has mentioned consultation with women prisoners on a number of occasions. Can he highlight today how many specifically were consulted with what they were asked, what methodology was used and so on? If he is not able to do that, will he agree to publish it? I will first of all check in terms of any confidentiality agreements that were maybe entered into when those people were surveyed and asked about the questions and the review that was undertaken. However, I am happy to provide as much information as is possible to Michelle Thomson. As I say, I will check on those facts first and see what information can be passed on. Just to say that it was a substantial number of, in this case, women that were consulted on this provided their views. I am not certain of the basis on which those views were provided, whether it is a confidentiality requirement or not, but I am happy to provide as much information as I am able to do. The cabinet secretary is training credulity to suggest that nothing has changed when everyone can see what has happened, but does it not all just go to show—the events of the past week go to show—that the amendment put forward to the GRR bill by Russell Finlay and Michelle Thomson should have been accepted by the Government and not dismissed as unnecessary when clearly events show it is necessary? I think that the concerns that underlay that amendment were not dismissed at all. In fact, that is demonstrated by the acceptance of a competent amendment that was lodged by Gillian Martin, which had the effect, for example, of allowing the police service should they have concerns about an individual applying for a GRC to be stopped in that process by putting in place a prevention order. Those concerns were legitimate. I think that they were agreed by this Parliament in a piece of legislation that was passed by a very large majority in this Parliament by representatives of all parties, and I just wish that democratic process has been respected elsewhere. That concludes the statement point of order, Russell Finlay. Thank you very much. The cabinet secretary relied on comments made in his answers from an SPOA official. I understand that this official is also an SNP politician. Can you give me some guidance around the declaration of interests for members? I thank the member for his point of order. On the basis that the person referred to is, I understand, an SNP official. I am not entirely sure that it would be for the cabinet secretary to go into the CV of the person concerned. I think that that would be a matter for others to do, if they wished, and the member has put that on the record.