Officers must maintain vetting or risk being sacked

Concerns over a new vetting law have been dismissed by MSPs

By 1919 staff

Officers must maintain vetting or risk being sacked

Concerns over a new vetting law have been dismissed by MSPs

By 1919 staff

MSPs have backed a new requirement for the ongoing vetting of police officers, with the force given the power to dismiss those who fail the process.

The change will now be enforced after near unanimous support for new legislation on ethics and conduct, despite a last-minute plea from the Scottish Police Federation (SPF).

The organisation fears the move could see vetting used as a “substitute for misconduct regulations”, circumventing the “principles of due process”.

Reps claim that officers with road traffic convictions during their employment, or who have a partner with a criminal conviction, could be unfairly penalised or lose their jobs – and may not be told why they have failed vetting.

Opposition politicians have also expressed concern because the changes were added in as an amendment at the second stage of the parliamentary process, meaning there has not been the usual full scrutiny by MSPs.

But HM Chief Inspector of Constabulary Craig Naylor told MSPs it was vital that “all officers and staff meet and sustain the standards required and that the public are served by a workforce that they can trust”.

Police Scotland also supported the “robust model”, and Justice Secretary Angela Constance defended her decision to include the amendment.

The Police (Ethics, Conduct and Scrutiny) (Scotland) Act includes a raft of legal changes requiring the police to have a code of ethics, changing the procedures for officer misconduct, and increasing the functions of the Police Investigations and Review Commissioner (PIRC).

“Officers who have faced formal misconduct proceedings and received outcomes such as final written warnings could be subsequently dismissed through vetting processes”

David Kennedy, SPF general secretary

Separately, His Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary in Scotland (HMICS) conducted a review of vetting in 2023 which concluded there were “gaps in the system”.

That followed Lady Elish Angiolini’s report into the murder of Sarah Everard by serving Metropolitan Police officer Wayne Couzens, which expressed concerns about a lack of periodic re-vetting in England and Wales.

On the back of these findings, Constance submitted amendments to the Scottish Parliament.

When someone applies to join Police Scotland in any role, relevant background checks are conducted by the Force Vetting Unit (FVU).

These checks involve researching a wide range of information on the applicant and includes information in relation to third parties and associates.

In a letter to MSPs, SPF general secretary David Kennedy wrote: “A key concern is the use of vetting as a substitute for misconduct regulations.

“In some cases, officers who have faced formal misconduct proceedings and received outcomes such as final written warnings could be subsequently dismissed through vetting processes.

“This effectively circumvents the principles of due process and undermines the outcomes of the misconduct system.

“Vetting should complement misconduct regulations, not replace them as a means to dismiss officers.”

He argued that changes should be fully consulted on, adding: “Differentiating standards for serving officers and addressing personal relationship concerns are also vital, as is the establishment of an independent appeals process.

“All of these changes are essential to uphold the principles of justice and fairness within Police Scotland and to protect the communities of Scotland.”

His concerns were echoed by Labour’s Pauline McNeill in Holyrood, who said: “The parliament has not been able to examine the new vetting provisions or issues such as whether there should be an appeals process, yet many officers do not know why they failed their vetting.”

She lodged a series of amendments which would have effectively removed vetting from the bill, but later said she had assurance from the SNP government that issues could be “dealt with in the regulation”.

McNeill agreed to drop most of her amendments, except one which would have provided for an “appeal if someone is dismissed or demoted as a result of a vetting outcome”.

This was defeated by 70 votes to 46, with the SNP, Lib Dems and Greens against and Labour and Tory MSPs – who also expressed sympathy with the SPF’s arguments – in favour.

Following a wider debate, the bill was then passed by 116 votes to zero, with Alba’s Ash Regan abstaining.

Constance said: “If I had ignored the recommendation of HMICS and the criminal justice committee to lodge an amendment on vetting, I think that I would have received criticism that was equal to the criticism that I received for lodging it.

“Nonetheless, the debate in and around the detail of the vetting provisions has been well motivated and will strengthen our engagement as we go forward.”

In a letter to MSPs, Deputy Chief Constable Alan Speirs wrote: “Inclusion of vetting provision within the bill, and the current proposals, act as a clear indication of the intention to ensure integrity is a core value across the organisation, governed by a robust vetting framework and that Police Scotland are fully committed to this pathway.”