Cleveland Police’s vetting of potential new officers is “pretty stringent” and as “robust” as it could be, according to the area’s police and crime commissioner.
Steve Turner said the length of the process undertaken sometimes created challenges with the time it took to get officers through the door.
He said: “I don’t see that [vetting] as a problem here.”
Councillor Chris Jones, a member of the police and crime panel that oversees Conservative Mr Turner’s work, pressed the PCC over national concerns that have been expressed about forces’ vetting procedures.
He said even where potential recruits were cleared, it could be an individual’s brother or another close family member who had criminal links.
Recently, a damning report stated hundreds of police officers who should have failed vetting checks may be in jobs in England and Wales with some decisions taken by forces “questionable at best”.
Former Home Secretary Priti Patel commissioned the report last year from His Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary, Fire and Rescue Services (HMICFRS) following the murder of Sarah Everard by a serving police officer.
His Majesty’s Inspector of Constabulary Matt Parr said: “It’s far too easy for the wrong people to get in.”
He added: “I think police leaders need to understand that unless they’re much tighter with who they recruit, much tighter with who they transfer between forces, and have a much lower tolerance for the normalised, sexualised bad behaviour towards women, both members of the public and in the force…they’re going to keep getting scandals and public trust is going to continue to erode.”
Vetting is meant to be carried out when candidates apply to join or transfer to a police force and then every ten years, or every seven for sensitive roles.
Instead, the review found officers passed despite having criminal records, being suspected of serious offences, having substantial debts, or having family linked to organised crime.
The inspectors uncovered examples of police officers transferring between forces when subject to complaints or misconduct allegations.
Most officers were also unaware they should report major life changes which trigger more vetting, such as divorce, financial trouble or a new partner.
Mr Turner told a meeting of the panel that the detail of the vetting the force went into was “long and complicated and thorough”.
He said: “There are always going to be headlines in the press that pick up on the worst elements.
“What we have to do is not knee-jerk to that and look at what we do locally and to say ‘Are we as confident as we can be?’
“My scrutiny around vetting has been quite detailed.
“My first scrutiny, when we started challenging the vetting process in Cleveland, happened 12 months ago to ensure we were robust and accurate and that some of the issues we have seen didn’t come up in Cleveland.”
Cllr Jones, a Liberal Democrat based in Redcar, said: “It isn’t always just about new recruits, it is about monitoring and doing reviews of current officers.”
Mr Turner said: “I agree and every officer is subject to this.”
The HMICFRS report said forces were under enormous pressure to recruit more people due to previous cuts, combined with experienced officers leaving.
Mr Turner said the Cleveland force had agreed with the Home Office to “over recruit” and had the numbers in the pipeline to do that.
HM Inspector of Constabulary, Mr Parr said, regardless of such pressures, there was “simply no excuse” for lowering standards in order to meet recruitment targets.
While not linked to vetting procedures, more than a dozen Cleveland Police officers have appeared at public disciplinary hearings this year alone for misdemeanours, including assault, drink driving, sharing confidential information and even urinating in a clothes store.
