Police Scotland Vetting Overview

ACCASpeirs provided a report which detailed an overview of the recent developments and improvements to processes within Police Scotland’s vetting department. During discussions the following matters were raised:

The Chair noted the importance for members to be clear around what vetting is, what it isn’t, what it can and cannot do, and what it can and cannot control. In addition, there is a need to know what other controls are in place where vetting cannot control the risks, noting that it was critical for both Police Scotland and public confidence.

Catriona Stewart (CStewart) sought clarity on how PS intend to merge the vetting process with the recruitment process to ensure that new officers are clear around what is expected of them. ACCASpeirs advised that the report at Item 8 of the agenda would highlight the Preventions and Professionalism Programme where vetting is only one element of activity that is undertaken. ACCASpeirs agreed that vetting was not a single solution, however, it is one element of the process.

Fiona McQueen (FMcQueen) sought clarity on the number of people with protected characteristics that have failed vetting, and additionally asked  how PS intend to review the vetting process following comments from the Chief Constable in relation to institutionalised discrimination. ACCASpeirs did not have a breakdown of figures, but advised that PS vetting process is to a UK standard with a continuous review around whether the correct information being gathered is correct. FMcQueen advised that in slower order she would be keen to see information brought forward to the committee to allow members to be assured that specific community group applications were not being excluded, and to include details of feedback provided to applicants who fail vetting. The Chair advised that she would be keen to understand whether there were equality impact assessments done on some of the broader policies, as this would be a control against unconscious bias. Meggie Pettigrew (MPettigrew) from HMICS advised that the IRG will be looking at vetting through a lens of protected characteristics. In addition, HMICS will publish a report on vetting, likely to be published in August 2023, prior to the Organisational Culture report. The Chair welcomed the independent assurance being provided by both HMICS and IRG in this space. 

Paul Edie (PEdie) sought clarity on what formal consultation had taken place in relation to Continuous Integrity Screening. ACCASpeirs advised that based on the approaches they wish to take, they are in the consulting space with Staff Associations and Trade Unions. PEdie asked why the consultation did not take place prior to the start of the process. ACCASpeirs advised at times there is a need to gain the Chief Constable’s approval before a consultation can be started and this process came to the UK at a pace. PEdie noted the importance of maintaining good relations with staff associations and unions and advised that he would value an enhanced engagement. ACCASpeirs advised that was the level of engagement currently taking place.    

The Chair welcomed the various vetting arrangements set out within the report, however, noted that there are limitations. The challenge then remains that when an individual is within an organisation, how is that information kept up to date, especially when vetting is intrusive and labour intensive. 

Members NOTED the report and AGREED the following actions:

20230106-CCC-009: Assistant Chief Constable Alan Speirs to bring forward the number of people with protected characteristics that have failed vetting. This will allow members to be assured that specific community group applications were not being excluded. In addition include the feedback provided to applicants who failed their vetting.