Official Report 597KB pdf
Police Service of Scotland (Vetting) Regulations 2026 (SSI 2026/46)
12:53
Our next item of business is consideration of a negative Scottish statutory instrument that was held over from last week. Members will note that there was a change to the agenda for today and that there is no longer a motion to annul for us to consider. I am grateful to the Scottish Government, HMICS and the Scottish Police Federation for the additional information that we received earlier this week.
Do members wish to make any comments in relation to the instrument?
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 However, for the record, the federation’s concerns—they are mine, too—are that vetting clearance can be withdrawn where an officer has not committed a misconduct offence, there has been no criminality and there has been no breach of the standards of professional behaviour. It can be withdrawn because of perceived vulnerability and where the officer has done absolutely nothing wrong.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 agree that the supplementary information that we received this week has been extremely helpful.
I agree that the additional information has been useful. I am inclined to agree with Pauline McNeill that, just because a set of circumstances exists in other parts of the UK, that is not on its own reason enough to replicate that here. However, there are good reasons to have the ability to have intermittent vetting processes for police officers, given the powers that they hold.
The answer that Craig Naylor gave to the question that I asked gives me further reassurance. However, I have always been reassured that an assessor is involved and that an independent process will be carried out to look at the issue. On balance, I remain satisfied with the instrument.
Are members content that the SSI comes into force?
Members.
We were due to move on to our final agenda item, which is on our legacy report. However, given the time, do members agree to defer that item to next week, when we are due to bring it back in any case?
Members.
With that, I close the meeting.
Meeting closed at 13:00.
Air ais
Petitions