Agenda item

1.      The Commissioner introduced the report, commenting that the excellent results of the assessment were achieved due to a huge amount of hard work by Kent Police Officers and Staff.  He commented that the assessment was rigorous and involved extensive data review and interviews with Officers.  The Commissioner noted the good work done by his predecessor, Ann Barnes in terms of challenging crime data integrity which now helped confirm a truer picture of the situation in Kent.  He also highlighted the improving picture Kent Police had achieved over recent years in terms of HMICFRS assessments. 

2.      Kent Police had now been rated Outstanding in Efficiency, which included planning and understanding of demand, resources and finances, and Outstanding in Legitimacy.  The Commissioner highlighted that Kent was the only Force to maintain this rating for four consecutive years.  He also noted that Kent had been rated as Good for Effectiveness and advised that he was keen to see this move up to Outstanding.

3.      The Commissioner commented that HMICFRS inspections were immensely valuable as they provided good external scrutiny and an unbiased perspective.  He noted that while this latest inspection evidenced that Kent was the best Force in England and Wales, there was still room for improvement and he reassured the Panel that he would be working with the Chief Constable to make this happen.

4.      The Commissioner advised the Panel that HMICFRS also conduct thematic inspections, with recent examples being Stalking & Harrassment and Fraud, and that he would bring papers to future meetings as appropriate.  The Commissioner also explained that Kent Police had used the Stalking and Harassment thematic inspection, which had been commissioned by the PCC for Sussex, to conduct its own internal review.  As a result of this, Kent was now looking at updating training arrangements and the Commissioner was considering commissioning a stalking and harassment support service for victims. 

5.      The Commissioner also outlined his concerns around how fraud was managed nationally.  He emphasised that this was not due to failings on the part of individual Officers but the problem was rather that the national policing response was not appropriate and often let victims down because of the established processes and lack of co-ordination.  He highlighted that Kent did have a dedicated fraud team, a cybercrime team and an economic crime team.  The Commissioner explained that HMICFRS had recently inspected ten Forces in relation to fraud, not including Kent Police, and had developed a number of recommendations including; better national co-ordination, better resourcing for Action Fraud and the recruitment of an additional 600 investigators.  There was also an action for Chief Constables to ensure that there were sufficient resources and a local strategy for dealing with fraud and the Commissioner reassured the Panel that the Chief Constable had confirmed this was in place in Kent.

6.      The Chair congratulated the Commissioner and Kent Police on the excellent PEEL Assessment result.  Members supported the Chair’s positive comments.

7.      Responding to a question regarding an ICT problem noted in the report, the Commissioner explained that it related to the implementation of the Athena system and reassured the Panel that most issues had now been resolved. 

8.      In response to a question relating to better joint working and information sharing between councils and Kent Police, the Commissioner confirmed that local Community Safety Units were a fundamental part of the process, enabling reports to either police or council to be picked up and managed appropriately.  He also highlighted that Kent Police did work with third party reporting services.

RESOLVED that the report be noted.