The Youth Ethics Advisory Panel (YEAP) is a partnership between the Scottish Youth Parliament and Police Scotland, giving young people a direct line to police leadership on complex ethical questions. Our role is to help Police Scotland navigate difficult decisions in ways that respect their duties to young people under the UNCRC. On Saturday, 27th September, panel members gathered in Edinburgh for training – a chance to sharpen our skills and sink our teeth into some genuinely challenging dilemmas.
Our panel draws mostly from MSYPs, though we’re also joined by young people working in the justice system or simply passionate about making change. This session brought together representatives from across Scotland – from Orkney to Stirling, Edinburgh to Glasgow – each bringing their own perspective to the table.
Understanding the Panel’s Purpose
The morning opened with Police Scotland staff and officers explaining why YEAP exists. Police Scotland values our input not just because young people’s views matter, but because we consistently offer perspectives that other advisory groups don’t. We’re not afraid to challenge assumptions or ask uncomfortable questions – and that’s exactly what makes the panel valuable.
We worked through an example ethical problem on anti-social behaviour, learning how the panel process functions and getting comfortable discussing very real topics (can you expand on this a little bit more, please? It isn’t very clear what you mean by “processing functions”). After pausing for lunch, we dove into two genuine ethical issues currently facing Police Scotland. I found both fascinating to facilitate.
Drug Testing Standards for Police Staff
Our first dilemma explored whether Police Scotland should implement voluntary or mandatory drug testing, whether officers should face different standards than civilian staff, and when substance misuse should be treated as a welfare issue rather than a disciplinary one.
The panel reached a broad consensus that all staff and officers deserve equal treatment. We discussed how substance misuse could delay or damage cases and erode public trust, regardless of role. Some members argued that, as law enforcement, police have a heightened duty to uphold the law. However, most felt that any approach must be grounded in compassion, supporting staff members wherever possible rather than simply punishing them.
Recording Sex and Gender Data
The second issue proved thornier: How should Police Scotland record sex and gender? The panel agreed it’s reasonable to ask for both pieces of information and that they should be recorded as distinct categories. When Police Scotland asked how they should phrase these questions, we struggled to provide a simple answer.
We understand that people describe their sex and gender in radically different ways – some reject labels entirely, while others would find complex questions confusing or irritating. Members suggested that asking fewer questions and allowing people to self-describe their experiences would let officers gather necessary data without making assumptions or causing confusion. Several members stressed that the questions themselves matter less than how they’re administered in practice.
The panel highlighted several factors Police Scotland should consider:
- Explaining why the data is recorded, whether it’s legally required, and what happens if someone chooses not to provide it
- How, where, and for how long the data will be stored
- Whether and how data will be shared
- The tone and delivery of the request
Reflections
Every member left energised by the session, finding both the dilemmas and the diversity of opinions genuinely interesting. On a personal note, I always appreciate those moments in these polarised times when we can say “I agree” with one another, or disagree respectfully without shutting down conversation. The questions were challenging, Police Scotland was genuinely engaged with our input, and we’re all looking forward to continuing this work together.
