Agenda item

1.      The Commissioner explained that she had wanted this report to be produced by someone with experience, independence and someone that provided good value for money.  It had proved difficult to commission someone but University of Central Lancashire had the expertise in their police and criminal investigation department to carry out the review of the Youth Commissioner recruitment process.    The review confirmed that it was a comprehensive process, but that it fell at the last hurdle, the Commissioner’s office did not ask for social media vetting and those advising the Commissioner’s office did not advise it.  However, the same vetting procedure was used to recruit police officers.  A new procedure had been put in place to ensure that anyone applying for a job at the Commissioner’s office would have to give permission for their social network sites to be viewed.  The Commissioner assured Members that points around equality and diversity would be made more explicit in the job description. 

2.      The Commissioner would be recruiting her Youth Commissioner over the coming months but she valued the comments of the Panel and would take any comments on board before the young person was recruited.

3.      During the course of the discussion Members made the following comments and received the following responses:

4.      Members praised the report and it was agreed that the process was well run and transparent but was the vetting system that was used appropriate?  The Commissioner confirmed that in future an alternative vetting process would be used.

5.      The Commissioner confirmed that she was still in touch with Paris Brown; that Paris was well and was working with young people. 

6.      Members raised concerns about the language used when talking to young people and the need to ensure that they understand the significance of comments made in the past.  The Commissioner concurred with the views, but had experience of teaching young people and in addition a peer panel had been used in the interview process and social media was discussed and built into the selection process. 

7.      Members had concerns that the Commissioner was looking for someone who was ‘street savvy’ and by following the new process it was going to prove extremely difficult to find the right person, however a Panel member commented that there was a difference between ‘street savvy’ and having respect for all people in society.  The Commissioner confirmed that 30 young people had already contacted her office to express their interest in the role, and the Commissioner was confident that she would find someone who was representative of their age group. 

8.      Members asked how the Youth Commissioner and his/her family would be supported throughout the process bearing in mind the exposure they would be subject to.  This was applicable not only throughout the recruitment process but in the future as well.  The Commissioner explained that the concerns were valid and she did delay the announcement of the previous Youth Commissioner to allow for vetting on the individual and checks to be undertaken on their wider family and a care package was being put together to support the young person in line with need.  The post of Youth Commissioner was for a year to give experience of working in a busy office and the final decision on the length of care package for the young person and their family had not been made. 

9.      A Member asked about the timescale of the process.  The Commissioner confirmed that she hoped to have a Youth Commissioner named by Christmas.

10.Concerns were raised about continuing down the route of a single Youth Commissioner, as Kent was a big, diverse county and a youth group covering the county could be used to share their views.  The Commissioner explained that she genuinely believed that a Youth Commissioner was the best option for Kent and Medway.  There was a need to maintain a connection with young people and the Youth Commissioner would be working with youth groups and schools.  The public were overwhelmingly supportive of the idea of a Youth Commissioner and there would be a strong support network around the successful individual. 

11.A member asked whether consideration had been given to raising the age limit of applicants to 18 years rather than 16 years.  The Commissioner confirmed that the person specification would be made more explicit and that the age limit would remain at 16 years. 

12.A member suggested that the Commissioner might look at alternative options to engage with young people, such as the Youth County Council, Medway Council, and an open invitation was offered to the Commissioner to attend a Youth County Council meeting and talk to the young people.  The Commissioner had looked at alternatives and would attend the Youth County Council meeting, pending diary commitments, but she wanted one person to represent the views of all the groups across the County. 

13.The Commissioner thanked the Panel for their comments and she looked forward to the next round of recruitment.

RESOLVED that the Panel supported the concept of engagement with young people and agreed that the previous recruitment process was well designed and robust.  The Panel noted that vetting procedures would be strengthened during the next round of recruitment.