West Midlands Police Federation’s discipline lead has described some aspects of the proposed new vetting regulations as ‘grossly unfair’ and fears they will undermine the disciplinary system.

Dave Hadley has led the branch’s response to a Home Office consultation on the plans, which are part of a wider review into police dismissals.

He highlighted that the proposed regulations in their current form would continue to allow vetting managers in each force to overrule the findings of a misconduct panel and effectively dismiss an officer.

Dave explained: “The issue is that once you have received a misconduct sanction, the regulations trigger a vetting review.

“When considering a misconduct sanction, part of a panel’s task is to consider whether the officer should remain within policing, can public confidence be maintained and if the officer is retained.

Misconduct panel

In doing so, the misconduct panel have had the benefit of assessing all the material which formed part of the case against the officer and, importantly, hearing the live evidence which was given by witnesses.

So, where a panel issues a sanction which is something less than dismissal, such as a written warning, they are also effectively saying that, in their view, the officer can safely remain within policing. 

“However, the vetting manager carrying out the triggered vetting review is subsequently, free to find differently.

“On the same facts, but without the benefit of hearing live evidence, they might, for example, think  the officer has demonstrated a lack of integrity and conclude the officer’s vetting clearance should be withdrawn. If that happens, then under the proposed regulations automatic dismissal is the outcome.

“It leaves officers with an entirely unsatisfactory position, where vetting managers are free to overrule the considered deliberations of a misconduct panel, and that is simply unacceptable.

“What’s the point in having a disciplinary process that says you can remain an officer, if a vetting manager can later say ‘no you can’t’ and effectively sack you anyway?”

Posting about the proposals on the social media platform X, formerly known as Twitter, Dave said: “To allow their properly considered decision of a misconduct panel to be overturned by an administrative paper process is, to my mind, grossly unfair and undermines the police disciplinary system.”

Dave also highlighted an issue around the unfairness of having vetting clearance removed owing to ‘adverse information’.

Vetting clearance

Adverse information, he said, is defined by the proposed regulations as ‘any info relevant to vetting which may impact on the inability of an officer to hold vetting clearance’.

Dave said: “The issue with adverse information is that the officer is often not told what the information which is adverse to them is, whether that is because it is protected data or police intelligence.

“So officers are left with the Force saying ‘we can’t tell you the reason for your vetting removal and dismissal, but just trust us’.

“That can't be right. There has to be something that might allow for the veracity of the supposed information to be satisfactorily confirmed, even if the officer can never be given it directly.”

Dave said the rest of the proposals were ‘straightforward and sensible’.

Suspension

“Police officers should be fit and suitable to serve, so the decision to create an obligation to hold vetting is absolutely right,” he said.

“Similarly, the proposed regulations create a power of suspension, something which goes on now in any case, just in the absence of a regulatory provision which can be pointed to as a lawful basis for that suspension, so that is again a sensible addition.”

“They’ve also proposed to add a further route of appeal. There would be a final appeal available to those affected to the Police Appeals Tribunal, which would be welcomed because it provides independence which will assist in building trust and confidence in the process amongst the members.”

Dave has submitted his response to the Police Federation of England and Wales (PFEW), which will respond to the Home Office on behalf of all members.