Appendix 7

Consultation - Respiratory Protective Equipment Procedure

Thank you for providing the opportunity to comment on this procedure. While it is clear from the document that Police Scotland is attempting to address its legal duty to protect the health and safety of its workforce the impact of its implementation seems to be in direct conflict with the organisations agreement to deliver the Scottish Government's Race commitment. The consultation process and the consequences of implementing the procedure also seem to conflict with the organisation's Policing Together initiative, values, purpose and vision.

The relatively short timeframe for such a significant organisational decision and the lack of any Equality and Human Rights Impact Assessment seriously limits consultee groups' ability to meaningfully contribute to certain sections. The document is incomplete in so far as numerous links to associated guidance are missing, and it is entirely unclear what evidence exists to support the imposition of a 'clean shaven' provision as a proportionate response. The document refers to 'Significant Risks' and 'extensive research' but in various areas leaves the process to be followed ambiguous or left to managers to define or provide additional guidance. If risk is so significant then surely it is appropriate to specify the response. Pg.5 - Application, referral to line mangers for further guidance. Pg.8/9 - carriage of alternative PPE to be left to line managers. Pg.9 - Significant onus on user which infers the risk may not be as significant as first presented. Pg.12 - No RPE Supervisor Guidance doc supplied.

The document as presented is not clear about which audience it is aimed at. References to Police Scotland, the Scottish Police Authority, Officers, Staff and Authority Staff are inconsistently referred to throughout, and the document fails to recognise the role of the Special Constabulary. It is suggested that a review of the following sections is undertaken:

Cover page

Introductory text refers to the National Decision Making Model which is commonly understood by officers but not Authority/Police Staff.

Pg.4 - Does a separate H&S Policy exist for the Authority? (Para 1) A contradiction exists between Standard Operating Procedure and 'guidance'. (Para 3) states it applies to Police Scotland's response to incidents but does not recognise the Authority.

• Pg.5 - Application
• Pg.6 - PPE states responsibility for Police Scotland again and fails to recognise the role of the Authority as employer.
• Pg.13 - 'Policing Scotland' should perhaps be Police Scotland or some alternative all-encompassing terms that covers both the Service and the Authority.
• Pg.13 - Why is it Police Scotland's clean shaven requirement?

Section 4

Hazard Identification and risk

Terminology used in this section states that risk assessments have been 'created' as a result of identified hazards. Surely the correct terminology is that risk assessments have been carried out to identify the hazard and mitigate the risk. The former suggest that risk assessments are a consequence of implementing the decision to be clean shaven rather than the opposite way around.

Hierarchy of controls

It seems odd that engineering controls are included within the control measures not possible when attending an incident. The idea of officers blindly entering situations that may present a risk is at odds with the National Decision Making Model and safe systems of work.

PPE Pg.7 (para4)

Replace 'protective characteristics' with protected characteristics. The introduction of PARP to the procedure is contrary to any discussions that P&D has been involved in to date. A clearer understanding of this equipment, its size, training requirements, storage and deployment is necessary before any comment can be provided as to its suitability as an alternative. The decision not to deploy officers to incidents based on a control room’s assessment of hazards that may be present surely represents a public confidence issue.

Section 6

Face Fitted RPE

It is this section that creates the requirement for those issued with FFP3 masks to be clean shaven and has the potential to indirectly discriminate. Section 19 of the Equality Act 2010 sets out the criteria upon which indirect discrimination claims are determined and includes the application of 'provision, criteria or practice (PCP) that would put someone with a protected characteristic at a disadvantage unless it can be shown that the disadvantage is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim. As stated earlier it is entirely unclear what evidence exists to support the imposition of a 'clean shaven' provision or to assess whether it can be objectively justified.

The protected groups that might say they are particularly disadvantaged by this procedure are:

• Males: Male members of the workforce may say that the clean shaven requirement requires them to change their appearance against their will and restricts their personal freedom to choose how they look.
• Religious individuals: Members of the workforce of certain faiths which mandate the wearing of beards (e.g. Islam, Orthodox Judaism and Sikhism) may say that the PCP forces them to contravene their religious beliefs.
• Disabled individuals: Members of the workforce with certain disabilities (e.g. those with arthritis in their hands, certain skin conditions or facial disfigurements) may say that the clean shaven requirement is impractical and/or causes them distress.
• Gender reassigned persons: Those undergoing, or who have undergone, gender reassignment and who have grown facial hair as part of the process of aligning their physical identity with their gender identity.

It is suggested that a grammatical check is conducted on (Para 1). No link to list of testers is provided, Pg.8 (Para 2) and the section feels light on the processes that will be in place to ensure this list is appropriately maintained and updated. It is also entirely unclear what processes will be in place to ensure matters of weight loss/gain or injury will be managed particularly as some of these issues can be gradual and will require managers to have sensitive conversations of personal nature.

It should be noted that the current version (3.00) of the Uniform and Appearance Standards does not list RPE as default operational uniform. Given the requirement to have FFP3 masks fitted, and for training to be given, it seems inappropriate to issue such equipment by default, and more appropriate for it to be issued on completion of training/ certification. It is also important to note that Authority/Police staff have no policy or procedure defining dress standards and there are numerous examples of case law underpinning this.

Face fit testing

Page 9 uses the term Police Staff continuously without recognising Police Authority Staff.

Face fitting process

What are the potential other reasons for failing a face fit test?

Section 8 - Resource Management

Operational deployment

What is the RPE Supervisor Guidance and what does it contain? It seems impractical for C3 to identify a RPE risk. Surely the best they can do is anticipate or predict! The assignment of resources based on anticipated risk has the potential to create a situation where female officers are assigned to calls rather than men and may be challenged as indirect discrimination.

Pre-planned operation and events

Given the nature of pre-planned operations and events the procedure needs to give consideration to the Special Constabulary and its profile. Given the voluntary nature of the service, the requirement to be clean shaven will affect around 68% of the special constabulary and may reduce numbers and/or affect an individual's ability to complete the necessary duty which would qualify them for payment.

Section 9

Exemptions to the clean shaven requirement

It is noted that the specific feedback requested of P&D on this section has not been included in the consultation draft as per our response Wed 26/04/2023 17:52. We would reiterate that it would be helpful to have sight of the exemption form as part of consultation and details of how exemptions will be recorded, managed and monitored.

The text on review lacks specific detail to say how or who will manage this process. As police managers are transient in nature - unless this is centrally managed or is supported through technological prompt it is easy to foresee issues.

Reviews for reasonable adjustments under the modified duties process is set as quarterly. As there are cross-overs between any timescales implemented in this process to those associated with disability and modified duties it may be useful to either refer to those processes or explain why there is deviation. The text is light on how to assess applications and it is unclear what value People Partners or equality colleagues can add.

The transfer of an individual to another post may be reasonable within the parameters of an Omni competent Officer, but the mechanics of it for Authority/Police Staff has the potential to increase complexity. As previously highlighted there is no Uniform standard for employees. While redeployment or dismissal on health and safety grounds may be permissible the implications are wide ranging. These could include:

• Potential issues around professional registration within the Forensics arena.
• Consultation requirements
• Breach of trust and confidence
• Pay protection
• Training and support

Looking at refusal - the procedure doesn’t recognise that exemption may be sought at any rank. The decision making and appeals process need to take cognisance of this.

Recruitment

The organisation recently signed up to the Scottish Government's Race commitment which seeks to remove barriers to recruitment, retention and progression. The requirement to be clean shaven is unlikely to support our efforts to deliver against this commitment or the Joint Equality Outcomes despite the existence of an exemption process. It is entirely conceivable given current media sound bites that this provision will be seen as a barrier to certain groups and grease anyone looking to present policing as a racist organisation.

The procedure is extremely light on any detail as to how this process will be managed. There are no procedures currently supporting officer recruitment however a review of procedures and practices against the Scottish Government toolkit, for staff appointments is being considered as part of work being led by the HR Policy Team. The requirement to be clean shaven in certain staff roles has not been considered as part of this work and will now have to be included within the scope.

In conclusion, this procedure seems to be in conflict with the organisation's agreement to deliver the Scottish Government's Race commitment and its Policing Together initiative. The lack of a clear audience and incomplete information in the document, along with the absence of an Equality and Human Rights Impact Assessment, limit the extent to which we can provide feedback or contribute meaningfully to the decision-making process. The lack of evidence to support the imposition of a clean shaven provision and the potential indirect discrimination against certain protected groups are areas of concern that need to be addressed.