You will not force that on everyone.

It is easy to delete an email, as I sometimes do.

My final question is for Craig Naylor at HMICS. You were the first person to raise the issue of mental health and policing with the committee, and credit is due to you and your organisation for bringing it to our attention, because there has now been considerable focus on it. Mental health is now the biggest reason why police officers are tied up, not court duty.

I do not know whether you had a chance to hear the evidence that was recently presented to the committee by the NHS and the chief psychiatrist. If you did not, it is worth having a look at. My interpretation of what they said is that there is still a gap that they are trying to fill, which is disappointing.

It was pointed out to the committee that the police still attend calls for people who are in deep and acute emotional distress. There were phrases such as, “Well, it is a societal problem.” We all know that that is true, but it should not fall to the police and only the police. Has enough progress been made in relation to your initial report? We could also invite you at some point to bring the issue back to the committee—I hope that you will do so—following the evidence that we received a few weeks ago.

I presume that there will be an opportunity for you to write to a future committee, as you wrote to us, to make sure that the issue does not disappear.

Good morning. I want to ask about the on-going issue of overcrowding in prisons and the conditions that some prisoners are experiencing. Some have worse experiences than others. You spoke about Barlinnie, which is the obvious place to start. It might be beyond your remit, but I will ask you anyway. Do you have concerns about prisoners who are serving their sentences in a place such as Barlinnie, which is extremely overcrowded—it is doubling up—compared to the experience of a prisoner who is serving a similar sentence in another jail? Is there a human rights issue in that regard? You would think that all prisoners should have broadly similar conditions and access to rehabilitation while they are serving their sentence. Do you want to say anything on that?

On a similar theme, someone wrote to me on behalf of a prisoner about the conditions in Barlinnie, and not for the first time. In this case, the man is serving an eight-year sentence in a jail that is designed for short-term prisoners. In my experience, that has been happening for years. Do you look at that situation? Have you come across that?

I just want to clarify a point. Deborah, did you say that a participant would receive a citation by email if they were to be willing to receive it in that way?

I, too, put on record my thanks for the documentation accompanying the SSI, which was considerable and necessary. I want to set out why I decided not to proceed with the motion to annul.

My concern is about an issue that I raised during the passage of the Police (Ethics, Conduct and Scrutiny) (Scotland) Bill. The federation raised it with us then and has raised it in relation to the instrument. I support the legislation on vetting every 10 years. However, I am concerned about the power of the chief constable to vet officers in between that or periodically, when

“a reason to do so arises.”

I have thought from the beginning that that is too vague. That is the issue with the SSI; the issue is not about the wider question of vetting.

Vetting involves issues such as whether a police officer is financially vulnerable and personal behaviours that are contrary to standards of professional behaviour. Police Scotland says that it has a

“duty of care to the existing workforce”.

I think that it has a duty ensure that, in ensuring public confidence in policing, it is not scaring police officers, whose morale is not the highest. The power could be used willy-nilly, without any framework at all.

I note that Alan Speirs has said that dismissal following failure to maintain vetting would happen for only the most serious matter. I will give him the benefit of the doubt on that. However, for the record, the federation’s concerns—they are mine, too—are that vetting clearance can be withdrawn where an officer has not committed a misconduct offence, there has been no criminality and there has been no breach of the standards of professional behaviour. It can be withdrawn because of perceived vulnerability and where the officer has done absolutely nothing wrong.

That is not to say that it is not right to have a periodic review, but I put on record for future reference that I would like members to consider whether the process is fair to officers. Withdrawal of clearance can be through no fault of their own. As we said during the passage of the bill—I certainly said this—we should not bypass the normal police conduct framework, which has safeguards. That is where the grey area lies.

The chief constable will have this new power. Previously, if someone did not clear their vetting, conduct or performance issues would be dealt with through a different framework. The new power means that significant employment issues will be determined in the operational chain of command and not through independent oversight. That is one of the issues.

I found the cabinet secretary’s letter helpful. From it, I derive that the officer concerned would be able to speak to the assessor, so there would be scope to question why vetting was not cleared. I appreciate that there is a right of dismissal that was not there previously. I would rather that the issue were dealt with before it got to the question of dismissal, but at least that provision is there.

I have scanned all the arguments from Police Scotland and particularly HMICS, which suggested this change. The only argument that HMICS has ever used is that we are out of line with England and Wales. It has not brought any evidence that we have big problems with Police Scotland police officers who have not cleared their vetting. That disturbs me a little. We have just heard that Police Scotland does things differently sometimes. I am not saying that we should not align but, to me, that is the only argument that has been made for the change.

I am sorry that I have been so lengthy, but I feel strongly about the issue and I wanted to get that on the record. Earlier, Jamie Hepburn asked Craig Naylor a helpful question about the provision, and Mr Naylor said that he will review the situation in 18 months. I hope that he means reviewing it from all sides—not just whether we are dealing with police officers who should not be clearing their vetting, but whether the process has been fair to police officers. I do not want it to be overused.

Thank you for letting me put that on the record, convener. With that, I am content with the SSI.

I know that what I have described has been happening for a lot longer, as far back as 10 years ago, when I visited Barlinnie. I am no longer surprised to find that there are prisoners serving a long-term sentence in Barlinnie. I could never understand it. I just thought that I would ask you if you had looked at that. Thank you for that answer.

Lastly, the committee is interested in orders of lifelong restriction; we have a round-table session about that topic on Thursday. I do not know whether you can comment on that, but you are probably familiar with the pattern. I was involved in passing the legislation for the orders, way back in the day, and I never thought, when we gave the courts the option for an extended sentence, which we need for the most serious cases, that it would result in more than 90 per cent of people who have completed the punishment part of the sentence remaining in jail. I can tell you that, as a legislator, I never thought that that was what it was for, so I am surprised. It seems that it is very difficult to question that, or to understand it. I understand that one of the reasons—to go back to Katy Clark’s line of questioning—is a lack of access to rehab, but I am sure that it is not as simple as that.

Do you look at those sorts of things when you go into prisons—for example, if there are prisoners there who are under such restrictions—or is that not something that you would do?

But it is open to you to undertake such a review. It seems to me that it should be somebody’s role to undertake an independent assessment with regard to those prisoners who are serving well beyond the punishment part of their sentence. So far, it seems that no one has any remit to say whether or not the practice has exceeded the scope of the legislation, or whether a review of the legislation is needed. I know that that would not all be down to you, but some of it would be, would it not?

Would it not be within your remit to look at whether there is a blockage to people getting out of jail because of a lack of services, such as mental health services?