Response by the CI to Erosion of Oversight
Response received by e-mail on 13th Nov 2021 from the Chief Inspector regarding the Erosion of Oversight e-mail sent to Gloucestershire CC Police and Scrutiny Panel which provides the detail:-
Reducing openness and transparency
by reducing SSCSP meetings from twelve to four a year. There were four meetings per year prior to moving to monthly during covid. Quarterly meetings are national best practice so we are delivering as per ‘BUSS’. Police resources and our chair struggled to sustain monthly meetings. Other members also raised concerns in the demands of monthly meetings. We are in fact more transparent than ever with regard to the information that we make publically available.
Creating barriers to SSCSP participation. * by mandating confidentiality agreements for attendance * by mandating vetting for participation.
To be clear there is no vetting requirement. Confidentiality agreements are required to protect public data. This is a constabulary approach for all community panel groups. You were the only individual to oppose the confidentiality agreement or raise this as a barrier. Excluding yourself we have had a fantastic and positive response. This is a legal requirement for the constabulary.
Failing to honor the Community Complaints Trigger Mechanism.
Please explain and provide an example. I don’t know of any such community trigger complaint made in respect of stop and search.
Failing to adapt processes within Professional Standards Department to permit * notification of complaints to the panels * sending details of complaints to the panels * an immediate understanding of issues surrounding complaints.
Personal data and specific detail cannot be discussed due to data protection. We will continue to track and discuss thematic learning, patterns and trends in respect of the very small number of complaints that we receive each year.
Editing the panel's original Terms of Reference without proper disclosure.
There is a reality that constabulary governance will over rule any TOR. Any change will be agreed by Police lead and Chair. The Constabulary have responsibility for the panel and the TOR.
Avoiding public disclosure of its departures from BUSSS.
Your comment is too vague for me to formulate a reply.
Disproportionality must be explained.
We have not hidden the fact that you are 7 times more likely to be stop and searched in Gloucestershire if you are black. Our explanation is published in the 2019 report and as you know factors are numerous and complex, census data is old and inaccurate. There is nothing more that I can add at this time, further analysis has been tasked as per the report recommendations.
Suppression of complaints.
There is no suppression of complaints. I have explained our limitations regarding discussion due to data protection above.
A report of dubious origin.
The report was delayed due to a need for further work and explanation of initial findings, this has been previously explained to you by both myself and Chief Inspector Gosden. There was no attempt to delay or deceive and it was published in good faith. The report does not indicate any institutionalized racism and the panel has not identified any specific racist behavior when reviewing individual search records.
Reduction in scrutiny.
Yes there is a reduction in meetings and scrutiny of late, but we revert to quarterly meetings and continue to comply with BUSS as was normal practice.