Agenda item

The Panel considered a report of the Police and Crime Commissioner, Joy Allen (PCC) which provided an update on the Vetting Process and Acceptable Policing Behaviours and Standards (for copy see file of minutes).

The PCC noted that the vetting process was important and linked to the public’s trust in the Police.  She added that, where it fell short, no matter which Force, there was an impact upon public confidence in all Police.  She noted that, therefore, it must be ensured that Officers and Staff were vetted to the appropriate standards.

Deputy Chief Constable Ciaron Irvine noted that the update report within the agenda pack represented the position of the Force going forward, in terms of vetting and acceptable / unacceptable behaviour.  He explained that it was important to have Officers that were skilled, well-trained and with the requisite moral and ethical standards in order to uphold the law.  He added that the vetting process was vital, and that not only did it include Officers and Police Staff, it also included volunteers and sub-contractors.  He explained the Police vetted on behalf of sub-contractors, in order to protect public safety.  The Panel noted that there were various levels of vetting, Non-Police Personnel Vetting (NPPV), regular Recruitment (RV) and specific vetting for designated management posts at an enhanced level (MV).

Deputy Chief Constable C Irvine explained that over the last few years there had been a number of significant incidents nationally that had eroded public confidence in vetting standards in parts of the country.  He added that Government had announced increases in Police numbers in 2019 and they had increased between 2020 and 2022. 

He noted that while there had been some central funding towards the additional work relating to that recruitment, it had not been sufficient to keep up with demands. 

Deputy Chief Constable C Irvine explained that in 2019, His Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire and Rescue Services (HMICFRS) had reported on vetting processes and upon inspection, Durham was in a very good position.  He added that the Force Vetting Unit adhered to ‘Authorised Professional Practice’ (APP) and that Durham had exceeded previous national standards, with Durham having already been already operating at the level required under the new APP that was now required by all Forces. 

Deputy Chief Constable C Irvine highlighted some of the areas which were to be further scrutinised, including the digital space, looking at applicants’ social media to identify any issues including misogyny, racism and homophobia.  He added that, as a consequence of those recent high-profile cases referred to, it was expected that there would be further tightening of vetting processes going forward.  He reiterated that HMICFRS had praised the work of Durham Constabulary in this area, and the Force would work to share best practice with colleagues, including the College of Policing.

Deputy Chief Constable C Irvine explained that the PCC had provided some additional funding to deal with the additional vetting workload, including the vetting of other partner organisations, at that lower level previously referred to.  He noted this had enabled an extra member of staff for 12 months to help manage the process.

In relation to Acceptable Behaviours, the Deputy Chief Constable, C Irvine explained that in 2020 the regulations in respect of public complaints had changed, allowing historic complaints to be made.  He noted that was a good thing, in order to root out any problems and build confidence in the Police.  While some lower-level incidents could often be dealt with via an apology, he noted that for the most serious cases that investigation and/or referral to the Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC) would be appropriate, with referral to the IOPC being important in terms of transparency. 

In terms of the process at Durham, the Deputy Chief Constable, C Irvine explained that all those involved in any investigation were trained Detectives, with safeguarding experts brought in when dealing with vulnerable people.  He added there was also dedicated, analytical support to look at data and noted that Durham Constabulary would have a new website within the next few weeks, with a direct portal for the public to submit a complaint.

Deputy Chief Constable C Irvine noted that in 2021, Baroness Casey had led an independent review into the Metropolitan Police which had significant criticism of the Metropolitan Police, and referred to other more recent national issues, including in relation to Avon and Sommerset Police.  He noted that Durham worked to learn from the experiences from those other Forces, adding that the small team at Durham ‘punched above its weight’ and was one of the first Forces to have a dedicated Prevention Officer.

Deputy Chief Constable C Irvine noted the training in place at Durham, which included the ability to identify triggers and behaviours early, so that issues could be addressed and steer people away from the incorrect path.  He noted that, notwithstanding all of the positive work in this area, there would always be cases to manage, noting there was currently nine people suspended.  He noted that Durham was twenty-six times smaller than the Metropolitan Police, and that in a comparison to their figures, Durham for its size would have equated to 36 suspensions, so the actual figure for Durham was much lower in comparison.  He added that Durham also had fewer numbers that both Northumbria and North Yorkshire Constabularies.  He explained that Durham operated a pro-active approach and had the technology to be able to scrutinise electronic devices.  He added that within the last two years there had been three accelerated misconduct hearings, two being for former officers, with all resulting in dismissals or that the Officer would have been dismissed, if they had been a serving Officer.

Deputy Chief Constable C Irvine explained that training on a new code of ethics had begun, and noted the PCC scrutinised the work in this regard through regular reports at the Force Executive Board, as well as through regular monthly reporting to the Chief of Staff, OPCC.

The Chair thanked Deputy Chief Constable C Irvine and asked the Panel for their comments and questions.

Councillor D Nicholls thanked the Deputy Chief Constable for his report and agreed that it was extremely important, especially as the Police often deal with the most vulnerable people in society, and that the public should have confidence the Police were carrying out their duties ethically and morally.  He highlighted the benefits of body-worn cameras in this regard.  He asked as regards the changes in regulations to allow for historic complaints.  Deputy Chief Constable C Irvine noted they were as a consequence of Government regulations, either through primary or secondary legislation, or via Statutory Instrument.  Councillor D Nicholls noted that it was positive thing, noting that some people may take a long time to be able to be confident enough to come forward with a complaint.  He asked, given the increase in the workload, whether there had been any additional money from Government or whether it had been solely for Durham Constabulary to fund. 

Deputy Chief Constable C Irvine noted that Durham had not dropped its vetting standards, rather the increased workload had only resulted in a slight increase in the time taken to process.  He added that with the current and future generations there would be additional work in terms of a deep dive into social media and website use, with people increasingly living and operating within the virtual world.  He noted there was some uplift from Government, however, going forward it would be for the Constabulary and OPCC to fund.  He noted there had been an increase in the number of people waiting to be vetted, with Police Officers being at the top of the list, being a legal duty.  He added that they were followed by Police Community Support Officers (PCSOs), then other Police staff, then people on vetted on behalf of other organisations.  He reiterated that while the process was not carried out as quickly as it had been possible previously, the high standards were rigorously maintained.  Councillor D Nicholls noted that language used by and within the Police was key, adding that was an important aspect in terms of fostering good behaviours within organisations.

Councillor D Boyes noted Deputy Chief Constable C Irvine had alluded to the high-profile cases involving Metropolitan Police, where it had been noted during the review that there had been many missed opportunities to pick up on behaviours.  He asked how Durham Constabulary ensured that information relied upon was accurate and timely, and whether assessments, such as psychometric testing, were used.  The Deputy Chief Constable explained that Officers would not be admitted until all the requisite information was received and vetted.  He noted a nil response to any information requested would automatically mean the person would not be admitted and he stressed that this was an issue on which the Force would not acquiesce.  He added that Durham would have direct communication with other Forces where an Officer from another area was looking to join Durham.  Deputy Chief Constable C Irvine noted that when he had joined Durham Constabulary, he had to provide all the necessary references, and therefore he understood firsthand the thorough approach that was undertaken.  He noted that he would never say that any system was perfect, however, the work undertaken at Durham including in terms of prevention, gave him much confidence.  He added that there was no legislation in place in terms of the use of psychometric testing or ‘lie-detectors’.

Councillor D Nicholls asked as regards the changing requirements in relation to vetting and transfers, and whether they would be enhanced, or would be in line with what Durham was already doing.  Deputy Chief Constable C Irvine reiterated as regards the existing changes that had been made to the APP, with Durham having already carried out some elements of this for around two years previously, such as looking at social media records.  He noted the work carried out within Durham Constabulary, explaining as regards succession planning in terms of those tasked with looking at professional standards within the Force. 

He added he was confident of the practices in place, policies and standards and the commitment of the Force to go even beyond those high standards.

Resolved:

That the report be noted.