Seòmar agus comataidhean

You will be aware of a huge amount of concern over many decades about the numbers of women whom we incarcerate in Scotland. The proposals are quite arbitrary, and they will affect a number of women prisoners—the cohort concerned is pretty arbitrary, however.

More broadly, from your experience, what would you say is the proportion of women in custody who you think really have to be there and who should not be dealt with in another way? If you prefer, could you say what proportion of women you feel would be better dealt with in a non-custodial way? I appreciate that, as you have said, you are dealing with some very difficult people, and I am not in any way underestimating the complexity of the issues, but is prison the right place for some of those women?

If you were to focus on initiatives that you think are more targeted at poverty, is the Scottish child payment an example of the kind of approach—a direct payment—that is more effective?

The cost of the Scottish child payment is forecast to rise from £457 million to £492 million. Jack Evans has spoken about the need for prioritisation. Do the witnesses think that the Scottish child payment justifies its cost? The witnesses we have heard from in previous evidence sessions have very much been of the view that it does. Do you think that, across the range of policies that are intended to address poverty, money is better put into increasing the Scottish child payment or perhaps into another initiative such as childcare, employability or the raft of anti-poverty initiatives that may be possible?

I am looking for advice.

As you said earlier, it is a question of prioritisation. If the choice were between putting more money into the Scottish child payment and putting it into targeted childcare and other initiatives, where would you tend to fall?

I will pick up on the issue of lists and vetting, which, as you know, cabinet secretary, has been a massive issue in recent times. That issue might not necessarily be dealt with in the bill before us, but perhaps you could provide an update on the implementation of the recommendations from HM Inspectorate of Constabulary in Scotland.

As you know, HMICS has advised the committee that it thinks that the chief constable should be provided with the power of dismissal in cases where a person cannot retain their vetting status. Indeed, Lady Elish Angiolini also advised that there should be a power of summary dismissal in some cases.

Given the massive nature of some of the issues that have been coming forward recently, what consideration have you given as to whether the legislative framework around vetting is strong enough, and what more could be done to ensure that there is an on-going focus on vetting as we move forward?

I appreciate that there may be one-off reviews, but we want that focus to be embedded. Are you actively considering that?

So there is work on-going.

More generally, with regard to the bill before us and the models that the Scottish Government is taking forward, one witness told the committee that an independent complaints process

“would be the gold standard.”—[Official Report, Criminal Justice Committee, 8 May 2024; c 18.]

Witnesses have made it clear not only that there needs to be public confidence in the complaints process, but that the police cannot police themselves.

What are your views on the role of Police Scotland’s professional standards department in continuing to internally assess and categorise, and investigate, complaints? More generally, is there scope for more independence in the current system in Scotland? What have your considerations been in that regard?

I want to pick up on something that Danny Dorling said. If it would be a very lengthy answer, maybe he could write to the committee instead. He referred to 2005 and the stunting of children’s growth at that time. Given that that was when tax credits were being brought in and a lot of money was being targeted to some of the poorest families—particularly working families—and there were very significant reductions in child poverty, it would be helpful to have a better understanding of the point that you were making, Danny.

That is helpful. I hope that it is possible to ask a supplementary question on non-disclosure agreements. Perhaps Fiona McQueen might be best placed to answer it, because she has raised that issue. Many organisations use non-disclosure agreements as a matter of routine. They use them in almost every situation when there is any kind of payment. I know that your organisation has decided as a matter of policy not to use them. The Police Federation says that non-disclosure agreements are used in 99 per cent of legal cases that are settled. That may or may not be an accurate statistic, but it gives the impression that they are used quite a lot. Police Scotland is a public body that gets public money, and you have referred to the fact that the employee might want to rely on non-disclosure agreements and privacy clauses in certain circumstances. Could you expand now, or perhaps in writing afterwards, on when you think such clauses are appropriate and how we could define when they are appropriate, so that we do not have a situation where they are used as a matter of routine?

ACAS guidance is not the only issue if NDAs are used so widely. We know that they are used in a very widespread way by many organisations that ACAS guidance applies to. Information on the public policy issues would be extremely helpful.