Chamber and committees

Sure—of course I will.

I was going to get to amendments 16 and 17. I fully welcome the Government’s position on them, as it will make a substantial difference in relation to fairness. I welcome the Government’s response.

I remain concerned about not having something in primary legislation on correcting information on vetting, but I am content for the most part. The only amendment in the group that I intend to move is amendment 14, on appeals; I will not seek to move the other amendments in my name. I thank the Government for the response on amendments 16 and 17.

Amendment 12, by agreement, withdrawn.

Amendment 13 not moved.

Amendment 14 moved—[Pauline McNeill].

This group contains a number of amendments, so I will try to be concise and clear. I believe that we require a proper vetting process that will give the public confidence in policing and in Police Scotland officers, and Scottish Labour is clear that we support the vetting provisions and their modernisation.

Police Scotland carries out checks and manages all levels of police vetting. It has an administrative role in managing national security vetting, with the process being undertaken on Police Scotland’s behalf by the Scottish Government. Currently, vetting includes recruitment vetting, which is the minimum level that is required for applications from all those who are seeking appointment as police officers or employment as members of staff in Police Scotland; management vetting; and vetting for a designated post.

HM Inspectorate of Constabulary in Scotland conducted a review of vetting policy and procedures in Police Scotland in 2023, and those new vetting provisions were inserted in the bill at stage 2 without adequate consultation with those with an interest, such as the Scottish Police Federation, staff trade unions and the Association of Scottish Police Superintendents. My amendments in the group seek to delete the vetting provisions, but I make it clear that I am probing the Government on the issue and inviting it to respond, particularly with regard to the lack of scrutiny of the provisions. That is my intention.

The Government indicated at stage 1 that it was considering putting vetting on a statutory footing. The Criminal Justice Committee’s stage 1 report refers, on page 56, to a letter from the cabinet secretary in which she said that she was

“exploring the legislative basis for vetting, particularly in the context of the Police (Ethics, Conduct and Scrutiny) Scotland Bill”.

The stage 1 report also refers to the “HMICS Assurance review of vetting policy and procedures within Police Scotland” report, which said:

“The Scottish Government should place into legislation the requirement for all Police Scotland officers and staff to obtain and maintain a minimum standard of vetting ... and the provision for the Chief Constable to dispense with the service of an officer or staff member who cannot maintain suitable vetting”.

I thank the cabinet secretary for her thorough response and for acknowledging that, at this stage, I am seeking to go over the provisions with a fine-toothed comb to ensure that there is fairness and that there is reasonable application of something that the Parliament did not get a proper chance to discuss at stage 2.

The cabinet secretary is quite correct to say that, in our stage 1 report, the committee asked for the chief constable to have the power to dismiss an officer or a member of staff who was unable to maintain their vetting. However, the proposals that we are discussing now came after the stage 1 report. For my part, had I had the detail at stage 2, I might have taken a different view—or maybe I would not have. I make the point that I supported the stage 1 report for the reasons that I have mentioned. However, now that I have had sight of the proposals, I want to examine them in detail.

I get some satisfaction from what the cabinet secretary said about what she expects of the regulations. For example, I raised the issue of ensuring that evidence that was previously used to maintain vetting cannot in all cases be used at a later date. I am satisfied that some of that can be dealt with in the regulations.

I have noted what the cabinet secretary said about my amendments. Given the concerns that the Scottish Police Federation and the Association of Scottish Police Superintendents have raised—I note that they did not get a chance to examine the provisions at stage 2—I was trying to ensure that vetting is not used when misconduct processes should be used. I plead for that to be clear as the regulations are taken forward.

As I indicated from the outset, I will seek to withdraw amendment 12, and I will not move my other amendments in the group, for the reasons that I have outlined—I have got some comfort on them. My one fundamental disagreement with the cabinet secretary relates to the appeals process. Forgive me, as I have not had a chance to examine the full detail of what an appeals process looks like under the statute, but it seems that someone could already have been dismissed. The thing that seems to be missing is the possibility of correcting something quite simple through some kind of corrections or appeals process.

I agree with Maggie Chapman that the vetting provisions are very important. However, as I said only a minute ago, I am not seeking to delete the vetting provisions from the bill. I am seeking to highlight that, in my view, there must have been some co-ordination between HMICS, which was conducting a review of vetting, and the Scottish Government. Whether that is the case or not, however, the Criminal Justice Committee got only a few days’ notice of the specifics of the vetting provisions and we could not take any evidence on them. We could not ask the staff unions or the Scottish Police Federation whether they thought that the provisions were fair and reasonable. It is a matter of principle for me that we should not approach legislation in a way that could impact on those groups of staff. I am sure that Maggie Chapman understands that parliamentary procedures would not allow me to make that point unless I lodged amendments at stage 3. However, I reassure her that I whole-heartedly agree with her point that we need strong standards of ethics and vetting.

The Scottish Police Federation has said that it had a general discussion with the Government and officials regarding the vetting provisions, but that there was no consultation. The former Scottish Police Federation general secretary Calum Steele says in his column in The Herald today that the vetting intervention has led to one of the most flagrant abuses of parliamentary processes in recent years. He makes the point that

“no worker should be in a position where they can be sacked on the whim of their employer and never be told why.”

That is why I hope that Maggie Chapman and others will consider the detail of my amendments.

A key concern is about 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 subsequently be dismissed through vetting processes. That would circumvent the principles of due process and undermine the outcomes of the misconduct system.

The Scottish Police Federation says:

“transparency in vetting decisions presents a major issue. Officers who fail vetting are often left in the dark about the specific reasons for their failure, with data protection cited as a justification for withholding that critical information.”

It says that the

“application of recruitment vetting standards”

would be problematic if a serving officer with a moderately long career was held to the same vetting criteria as new recruits, and it adds:

“Scotland currently refuses to disclose detailed reasons for vetting failures to serving officers ... This lack of transparency breeds mistrust and prevents them from understanding or addressing the concerns raised.”

To ensure fairness and accountability, I believe that the service must look to disclose vetting issues where it can.

HMICS looked at 250 cases over a four-year period to review where vetting clearances were approved and where the applicant had previous convictions. It is unclear whether the new vetting procedures will have an impact on those cases. It is not a question of whether we think that that is right or wrong; the point is that we do not know whether the new vetting procedures will have an impact on those officers.

Although the bill does not specify the interval for new vetting, I think that HMICS has suggested that it would be every 10 years. The Association of Scottish Police Superintendents said that it is concerned that the proposals on vetting could be open to misuse through the service or authority seeking to create a fast-track or alternative method to dismiss police officers without notice. To put it simply, if the existing misconduct regulations and/or performance and capability regulations are not used correctly or are viewed as requiring more effort or creating a slower route to deliberation of an outcome, the failure or withdrawal of an officer’s vetting status could be misused as an easy shortcut for dismissal. We might think that that would never happen but, when we are looking at legislation as parliamentarians, we have to account for all scenarios.

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. It could be due to a third-party association or it could be the result of wrongful information that they are unable to correct.

I will now address the specifics of the amendments in the group. Amendment 13 would insert a new subsection following the definition of vetting to clarify that it should not be an alternative to or substitute for misconduct proceedings.

Amendment 14 provides for an appeal if someone is dismissed or demoted as a result of a vetting outcome.

Amendment 15 makes a key distinction between misconduct and vetting. In a misconduct hearing, there is a process, and the person has the right to defend themselves against allegations, whereas in the vetting process there is not much scope for that. I want to ensure that there is a clear distinction between the two. The amendment provides that

“vetting cannot be triggered by the conclusion of misconduct proceedings where it was determined that ... behaviour or performance was not”

below the expected standard.

Amendment 16 would provide for the vetting code of practice to include a need for evidence. That evidence would be required to demonstrate that a person is not suitable to be a police officer.

Amendment 17 would require the code of practice to

“include provision for ... reasons to be provided”

if vetting leads to the vetted person being required to comply with conditions, redeployed, demoted or dismissed.

I turn to amendment 18. The vetting of a serving police officer cannot be the same as recruitment vetting. There should be different criteria. There are currently police officers who have been convicted of small offences such as speeding offences, and they may fail their vetting. They might have failed it if they had just joined, but they might now have 15 years’ service. Amendment 18 would add wording to the definition of vetting in the relevant section to specify that it is separate from any assessment that is required as part of the recruitment process. The amendment provides that information that has previously been disclosed may not be used later as a reason to demote someone. If information has already been considered and accepted, it should not be used again. I accept that what is proposed is a belt-and-braces approach.

Amendment 24 would make a deletion.

Amendment 19 would make the same change in section 3B that amendment 14 would make in section 3A, because there are two sections to be considered.

Amendment 20 is a consequential amendment that is linked to amendment 19. It would remove the provision on appeals in proposed new section 50A(1)(b) of the 2012 act.

Amendment 21 provides that vetting may not be triggered by the conclusion of misconduct proceedings.

Amendment 22 would add to the definition of vetting to include that, in sections 3A and 3B, vetting is

“separate to any assessment required as part of the recruitment process”.

Amendment 23 would do the same as amendment 13 would do in section 3A. It says:

“For the avoidance of doubt, vetting is not a substitute for or alternative to misconduct processes where there are concerns around the standard of behaviour … of a constable”.

Amendment 25 would leave out section 3B. As I have said, I do not intend to move that, and the same applies to amendment 26. Amendment 27 relates to the long title.

I apologise to members for the length of those comments but, given that the provisions were introduced at stage 2, I wanted to be quite thorough in trying to flush out some of the issues that we might all agree on and what might be fair and reasonable so that, if we sign up to this—if we vote for the bill at decision time tonight—the measures will at least have had some debate at stage 3.

I move amendment 12.

That is where I have some difficulty. We are creating a framework, but it seems to me that a right of correction or appeal should be in the legislation. My problem with the statutory proposal is that the person will already be dismissed at that point—but perhaps I am wrong.

It is concerning that the minister said in her statement that the Government has not yet established

“a clear agreement on the minimum vacant secure care capacity requirements for Scotland ... at any given time”.

Given that there has been a change in the law, which many have welcomed, I ask the minister to be clear on what will happen to a young offender who previously would have been in Polmont if, on the day of sentencing, they are required to go to a secure place but none is available. Can I have the minister’s cast-iron assurance that that young offender will remain in Scotland? What will happen in that situation?

Scotland has had its own sexual abuse scandals involving children. One well-reported case, operation planet, was an investigation into the alleged abuse of young boys recruited for sex work, many of whom were in care. That case is not included in the inquiry.

I acknowledge the presence of the First Minister, John Swinney, who has been personally dedicated, over many years, to addressing the issue of historical child sex abuse.

I wrote to Lady Smith last year to ask for the inclusion of such abuse cases involving children in care that are currently not included. I hope to have the minister’s support for that. I also ask the minister to confirm that the continuing commitment to invest in the survivors of child abuse will give practical support to those adults who have survived child sex abuse.

On Sunday 15 December, which was the day of the Scottish cup final, we witnessed appalling scenes of violence and disorder in the city centre of Glasgow, which was caused by groups of football supporters—who were not representative, of course, of the vast majority of football fans.

First, I agree with the First Minister when, in response to that, he said that clubs have a role to play in preventing such disgraceful behaviour. We agree on that. However, given that the police are now trying to identify those who are responsible through the use of closed-circuit television and social media footage, is the First Minister aware that CCTV cameras in Glasgow are no longer staffed 24 hours, seven days a week? That means that, before the 3 pm shift, the cameras cannot zoom in and there cannot be detailed monitoring of disorder in real time.

I fully appreciate that the First Minister will say that he is not responsible for CCTV in Glasgow, but I am asking him not to stay silent about this. Does he believe that Police Scotland needs all available resources to tackle crime, not just those relating to football events but other crimes, such as violence against women, that often occur outwith those hours? Does the First Minister agree—

I appreciate that he might not be aware of this, but does he agree that it is a scandal that Police Scotland was not consulted when Glasgow City Council removed 24/7 CCTV? I would like the First Minister to agree with me on that.