Agenda item

1.    The Chair introduced the item and stated that the Panel sought reassurance from the Commissioner that Kent Police had robust vetting and counter corruption measures in place, following a succession of high profile issues in other forces.

2.    The Commissioner introduced the report which provided an overview of Kent Police’s Central Vetting Unit and Counter Corruption Unit’s functions; the policing Code of Ethics; how the Chief Constable was held to account on officer and staff integrity and standards; and the pension forfeiture process which he could consider in certain circumstances following the conviction of an officer for a criminal offence. He stressed the importance of removing sexist, discriminatory and criminal officers from the Force. He explained that vetting resources had been increased, to handle higher recruitment levels. Reassurance was given that recruitment standards hadn’t been reduced during the Police Uplift Programme and that systems were in place to scrutinise social media use. He added that assurance had been received from the Deputy Chief Constable, that any individuals who hadn’t had the correct level of vetting were now appropriately vetted. Members were told that proactive counter corruption measures were in place and that the Counter Corruption Unit’s priorities remained: sexual misconduct; inappropriate and notifiable associations; misuse of Force systems and disclosure of information; and misuse of drugs. He added that infiltration; financial vulnerability; social media; and officer morale were the Unit’s four identified emerging threats. The independent whistleblowing system, facilitated by Crimestoppers, for reporting wrongdoing was highlighted. Regarding pension forfeiture he cited the cases detailed in the report and noted that he had recommended that the Home Office streamline the process and remove the qualification that the offending must be connected to the officer’s service. He concluded by confirming that 65% of the public funded portion of the pension could be forfeited and that in the cases he sought forfeiture, he considered what was proportionate to the crime or misconduct.

3.    The Chair commended the use of Crimestoppers for independent whistleblowing and asked the Commissioner whether he was confident that cultural change had occurred in the organisation. The Commissioner assured the Panel that he was confident positive change had occurred and that adequate systems were in place.

4.    In response to a question from the Vice Chair, the Commissioner stated that the findings of all internal cases as well as the Casey Report had been taken into account and that the Chief Constable should have further powers to remove officers for misconduct.

5.    The Commissioner agreed to provide information on how the public could report police misconduct, following the meeting.

6.    Mr Harper confirmed, following a question from a Member, that he met regularly with Kent Police’s Head of Professional Standards and that the majority of investigations were instigated by officers. He stated that this reflected good organisational culture.

7.    A Member asked whether a Casey Report style investigation into Kent Police would be considered, to assess the current culture within the organisation. The Commissioner stated that the approach would not be necessary at the present time and that many additional measures including culture boards, which officers could attend and were supported by staff associations, were in place to ensure a healthy organisation-wide culture.

8.    The Commissioner agreed to confirm, following the meeting, whether the uplift in the Central Vetting Unit would be permanent.

RESOLVED to note the report.