Police and Justice Bill

---

[back to previous text]

Schedule 6

Amendments to the Crime and Disorder Act 1998

Nick Herbert: I beg to move amendment No. 140, in schedule 6, page 81, line 1, leave out subparagraph (5).

The amendment is probing. The explanatory notes relating to schedule 6 explain that paragraph 2 will enable

“the appropriate national authority to add to or otherwise change the list of responsible authorities”,

and suggests that that will be possible in Wales. Will the Minister explain that provision further, given that it confers on the Secretary of State the power to do that in future? What proposals do the Government have to change the list of responsible authorities and how will that affect crime and disorder reduction partnerships?

Hazel Blears: The order-making power simply allows us to change the responsible authorities without having to use primary legislation. At this stage, there are no further intentions to amend the responsible bodies, but new organisations might well be established that could play a role in crime and disorder reduction partnerships, and it would be difficult to have to use primary legislation every time we want to make a variation in respect of the type of bodies that should be engaged.

Recently, there have been discussions, which I think are ongoing, about whether the Greater London authority should be a responsible authority for crime and disorder. I certainly have no plans to bring in additional bodies, but it is important that there should be an order-making power so that we can be flexible and adapt to changing circumstances without needing always to return to primary legislation when there is an opportunity for a new body to play an important role in the wider partnership. I do not want us to lose the opportunity to draw in those partners. Primary care trusts and fire authorities are now partners, but they were not covered by the original legislation, and we had to return to legislation each time to get them involved. The order-making power will give us the flexibility to add bodies without going through the lengthy and, dare I say it, bureaucratic process.

Nick Herbert: I am grateful to the Minister for that explanation. I wondered whether there were proposals to include new bodies within the crime and disorder reduction partnerships, but it appears that there are not and it is just a matter of taking a power in case it may be needed in the future. I accept the Minister’s point. If new bodies can be brought in it is sensible to do so by order rather than by primary legislation. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

1.30 pm

Question proposed, That this schedule be the Sixth schedule to the Bill.

Nick Herbert: I am grateful for the opportunity to raise a broader issue that concerns crime and disorder reduction partnerships and what is being proposed for
 
Column Number: 192
 
them. The “Review of the Partnership Provisions of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998—Report of Findings” published by the Home Office prior to Second Reading stated that the merger of crime and disorder reduction partnerships was under consideration. That would be enabled not under this Bill but under the Police Reform Act 2002. However, it goes directly to the substance of the Bill, which is to reshape in part how crime and disorder reduction partnerships operate.

The report conceded:

“CDRPs have a vital role within this family of partnerships at local level”.

We would all agree. Having seen local crime and disorder reduction partnerships in operation, we appreciate the value of that localism. However, paragraph 2.9 recommended taking

“the opportunity, wherever possible, to reduce the total number of partnerships.”

Paragraph 2.12 stated that the Government were

“not at this stage thinking of compelling mergers.”

That sounds ominous, as if it may be the case in the future. The paragraph continued that the Government were considering the possibility against the background of potential change in local authority boundaries as a result of their review.

My simple point is that, if the Minister relies on crime and reduction partnerships as the way to deliver policing locally—against our accusation that larger police authorities are taking policing further away from local people—that will be substantially undermined if the CDRPs are to be much larger than they are now. In my county of Sussex, it is proposed that the local authority-based CDRPs will grow and become county-based CDRPs. Inevitably, that will take local management further away from people. I will need the Minister to tell us more about her thinking in that regard before I can agree to the proposal, which makes new provision in relation to the CDRPs.

Hazel Blears: I think that we would all agree that the crime and disorder reduction partnerships, which were introduced in the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, are one of the most significant things that have happened to policing and community safety. In many parts of the country, the partnerships are working very well. The best CDRPs bring together the health service, education, social services, the police and the local authority. They share information, look at hotspots in their communities and help to task and to deploy resources to reduce a range of crime. However, it has to be said that, in some parts of the country, the performance of CDRPs is patchy. That is why we reviewed the partnership provisions in the Crime and Disorder Act 1998.

We had 450 different responses to that extensive and lengthy consultation—some people thought that it was too lengthy. The recommendations took a long time to come out. However, it was a serious attempt to look at where CDRPs were working well, where they were not and what we could do to strengthen them.

 
Column Number: 193
 

Schedule 6 contains various recommendations for national standards for information sharing and community engagement. They are about ensuring that all partners take the partnership seriously. If CDRPs are going to be the engine of local policing, together with the neighbourhood policing teams and the basic command units, they have to be rigorous, perform well and deliver the outcomes that communities want.

Small partnerships might find it advantageous, therefore, to merge with neighbouring ones. That is voluntary, and not being imposed by the Government. However, we might ask CDRPs to focus on a particular issue, to come up with a strategy and to work with the police to develop tactics. The focus might be on, for example, alcohol-related violent crime, if that is a big community issue. That would be quite a task, and if a small organisation lacks the capacity, resources and people to carry it out, it makes sense for it to come together, perhaps with a neighbouring CDRP, to take that forward.

Many of the established drug and alcohol teams have merged with their CDRPs because they recognise that that makes sense. Those teams tackle drug and alcohol problems, which fuel a lot of violent and acquisitive crime, so it makes sense to bring together the bodies that deal with all those issues. In some other parts of the country, those teams have not merged, probably for good local reasons, and all I am concerned about is that those areas achieve the outcomes that we want.

The proposal to encourage CDRP mergers, where appropriate, is about ensuring that they can perform at a level that can deliver good crime reduction for their local communities. I hope that that reassures the hon. Gentleman that the proposals are not a centralised plan to dictate the landscape, but are driven by efficiency and performance to ensure that the CDRPs that, in some cases, struggle to deliver on the agenda, can get support from neighbouring CDRPs.

Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con): How confident is the Minister that those new bodies will be accountable to local authority overview and scrutiny committees, rather than just “answerable”—the word used in the explanation of the issue on the Home Office’s website? For example, often, a primary care trust has a political leadership, and the local authority, being a stakeholder in the same partnership, will, by definition, have some sort of political leadership. The overview and scrutiny committee also will have a political leadership. Therefore, there might be answerability, but will there be accountability?

Hazel Blears: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman knows that we will have a detailed debate on the role of overview and scrutiny committees during consideration of later clauses. One of our CDRP proposals is to ensure that the elected member, the community safety portfolio holder, plays an increasingly more visible role. Many CDRPs are run primarily by officers and executives, and sometimes the elected politician does not have the kind of visible role
 
Column Number: 194
 
that I want them to have. It is important that a community can hold to account the person responsible for those issues.

Some of the CDA recommendations in schedule 6 are about ensuring that the elected members play an increasingly important role in setting some of the CDRP’s strategic priorities. There are also proposals to separate the strategic target setting role from the actual operational delivery, which would help to introduce into the system more accountability. Taken together, the measures would help dramatically to increase local answerability and accountability. On that basis, I ask that the schedule be agreed to.

Nick Herbert: I am grateful to the Minister for her reply, and I accept the merit of the Bill’s provisions for splitting the strategic and operational roles of crime and disorder reduction partnerships. I am not sure that she fully took on board what I was saying about turning some of the crime and disorder reduction partnerships into much bigger units, and the effect of that on localism.

The other day, I met members of a crime and disorder reduction partnership in my constituency, and each member, from the fire service, the police service and the local NHS trust, was anxious to express concerns to me. They felt that, at the district council level at which the partnership operated, there was the local knowledge to make the planning of crime reduction, and the way in which the partners worked together, effective. It is interesting that they were sceptical about the partnership when it was first established, but as time went on they found that it was useful in bringing them together, and drawing the resources of the community together to reduce crime. They felt that they could not be as effective by operating at county level, which would take them further from local communities.

Another point that I am not sure the Minister took on board entirely is that we have a fear about whether what is happening will match the proposed reorganisation of local government, which has not yet been properly announced or discussed in the House, but which is the background against which many of the measures in the Bill will be implemented, whether in relation to CDRPs or police force amalgamation. It will be curious if district or borough councils are no longer to play the lead role in crime and disorder reduction partnerships, as they are responsible for matters such as licensing, environmental health and, indeed, closed circuit television.

The point has been made, and I believe that we shall return to it when the Government present proposals for the mergers. However, we have put down a marker of our concern, and on that basis we support the schedule.

Question put and agreed to.

Schedule 6 agreed to.

 
Column Number: 195
 

Clause 15

Role of local authority overview and scrutiny committees

Martin Horwood: I beg to move amendment No. 108, in clause 15, page 12, line 13, after third ‘a’, insert ‘reasonable’.

The Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: amendment No. 138, in clause 15, page 12, line 18, at end insert—

‘(aa)   the councillor may refer the matter to the responsible authority;’.

Amendment No. 139, in clause 15, page 12, line 19, after ‘(b)’, insert

‘if the matter is not resolved by the responsible authority,’.

Amendment No. 109, in clause 15, page 12, line 30, after ‘any’, insert ‘reasonable’.

Amendment No. 110, in clause 15, page 13, line 1, after ‘section’, insert ‘reasonable’.

Amendment No. 111, in clause 15, page 13, line 3, after ‘other’, insert ‘criminal’.

Amendment No. 113, in clause 15, page 13, line 21, at end insert

‘; but such regulations shall not be made unless a draft of them has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.’.

Clause stand part.

Government new clause 8—Local authority scrutiny of crime and disorder matters—

‘(1)   Every local authority shall ensure that it has a committee (the “crime and disorder committee”) with power—

(a) to review or scrutinise decisions made, or other action taken, in connection with the discharge by the responsible authorities of their crime and disorder functions;

(b) to make reports or recommendations to the local authority with respect to the discharge of those functions.

“The responsible authorities” means the bodies and persons who are responsible authorities within the meaning given by section 5 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 (c. 37) (authorities responsible for crime and disorder strategies) in relation to the local authority’s area.

(2) Where by virtue of subsection (1)(b) the crime and disorder committee makes a report or recommendations it shall provide a copy—

(a) to each of the responsible authorities, and

(b) to each of the persons with whom, and bodies with which, the responsible authorities have a duty to co-operate under section 5(2) of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 (c. 37) (“the co-operating persons and bodies”).

(3) Where a member of a local authority (“the councillor”) is asked to consider a local crime and disorder matter by a person who lives or works in the area that the councillor represents—

(a) the councillor shall consider the matter and respond to the person who asked him to consider it, indicating what (if any) action he proposes to take;

(b) the councillor may refer the matter to the crime and disorder committee.

In this subsection and subsections (4) to (6) “local authority” does not include the county council for an area for which there are district councils.

(4) Where a member of a local authority operating executive arrangements declines to refer a matter to the crime and disorder committee under subsection (3)(b), the person who asked him to consider it may refer the matter to the executive of that authority.

(5) Where a matter is referred under subsection (4) to the executive of a local authority—

 
Column Number: 196
 

(a) the executive shall consider the matter and respond to the person who referred the matter to it, indicating what (if any) action it proposes to take;

(b) the executive may refer the matter to the crime and disorder committee.

(6) The crime and disorder committee shall consider any local crime and disorder matter—

(a) referred to it by a member of the local authority in question (whether under subsection (3)(b) or not), or

(b) referred to it under subsection (5),

and may make a report or recommendations to the local authority with respect to it.

(7) Where the crime and disorder committee makes a report or recommendations under subsection (6) it shall provide a copy to such of the responsible authorities and to such of the co-operating persons and bodies as it thinks appropriate.

(8) An authority, person or body to which a copy of a report or recommendations is provided under subsection (2) or (7) shall—

(a) consider the report or recommendations;

(b) respond to the crime and disorder committee indicating what (if any) action it proposes to take;

(c) have regard to the report or recommendations in exercising its functions.

(9) In the case of a local authority operating executive arrangements—

(a) the crime and disorder committee is to be an overview and scrutiny committee of the authority (within the meaning of Part 2 of the Local Government Act 2000 (c. 22));

(b) a reference in subsection (1)(b) or (6) to making a report or recommendations to the local authority is to be read as a reference to making a report or recommendations to the local authority or the executive.

(10) Schedule (Further provision about crime and disorder committees of certain local authorities) (which makes further provision, corresponding to that made by section 21 of the Local Government Act 2000, about the crime and disorder committees of local authorities not operating executive arrangements) has effect.

(11) In this section—

“crime and disorder functions” means functions conferred by or under section 6 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 (c. 37) (formulation and implementation of crime and disorder strategies);

“executive arrangements” means executive arrangements under Part 2 of the Local Government Act 2000 (c. 22);

“local authority” means—

(a) in relation to England, a county council, a district council, a London borough council, the Common Council of the City of London or the Council of the Isles of Scilly;

(b) in relation to Wales, a county council or a county borough council;

“local crime and disorder matter”, in relation to a member of a local authority, means a matter concerning—

(c) crime and disorder (including in particular forms of crime and disorder that involve anti-social behaviour or other behaviour adversely affecting the local environment) in the area represented by the member, or

(d) the misuse of drugs, alcohol and other substances in that area.’.

The following amendments thereto: (a), at end of subsection (3)(a) insert—

‘(aa)   the councillor may refer the matter to the responsible authority;’.

(b), at beginning of subsection (3)(b) insert

‘if the matter is not resolved by the responsible authority’.

Government new clause 9—Guidance and regulations regarding crime and disorder matters—

‘(1) The Secretary of State may issue guidance to—

(a) local authorities in England,

(b) members of those authorities, and

(c) crime and disorder committees of those authorities,

 
Column Number: 197
 

with regard to the exercise of their functions under section (Local authority scrutiny of crime and disorder matters).

(2) The National Assembly for Wales, after consulting the Secretary of State, may issue guidance to—

(a) local authorities in Wales,

(b) members of those authorities, and

(c) crime and disorder committees of those authorities,

with regard to the exercise of their functions under section (Local authority scrutiny of crime and disorder matters).

(3) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision supplementing that made by section (Local authority scrutiny of crime and disorder matters) in relation to local authorities in England.

(4) The Secretary of State, after consulting the National Assembly for Wales, may by regulations make provision supplementing that made by section (Local authority scrutiny of crime and disorder matters) in relation to local authorities in Wales.

(5) Regulations under subsection (3) or (4) may in particular make provision—

(a) as to the co-opting of additional members to serve on the crime and disorder committee of a local authority;

(b) as to the frequency with which the power mentioned in section (Local authority scrutiny of crime and disorder matters)(1)(a) is to be exercised;

(c) requiring information to be provided to the crime and disorder committee by the responsible authorities and the co-operating persons and bodies;

(d) imposing restrictions on the provision of information to the crime and disorder committee by the responsible authorities and the co-operating persons and bodies;

(e) requiring officers or employees of the responsible authorities and the co-operating persons and bodies to attend before the crime and disorder committee to answer questions;

(f) specifying how a person is to refer a matter to a member of a local authority, or to the executive of a local authority, under section (Local authority scrutiny of crime and disorder matters)(3) or (4);

(g) specifying the periods within which—

(i) a member of a local authority is to deal with a request under section (Local authority scrutiny of crime and disorder matters)(3);

(ii) the executive of a local authority is to deal with a matter referred under section (Local authority scrutiny of crime and disorder matters)(4);

(iii) the crime and disorder committee is to deal with a matter referred as mentioned in section (Local authority scrutiny of crime and disorder matters)(6);

(iv) the responsible authorities and the co-operating persons and bodies are to consider and respond to a report or recommendations made under or by virtue of section (Local authority scrutiny of crime and disorder matters).

(6) Regulations made by virtue of subsection (5)(a) may provide for a person co-opted to serve as a member of a crime and disorder committee to have the same entitlement to vote as any other member.

(7) In this section ”local authority”, ”crime and disorder committee”, ”responsible authorities” and ”co-operating persons and bodies” have the same meaning as in section (Local authority scrutiny of crime and disorder matters).’.

The following amendment thereto: (a), leave out sub-paragraph (i).

Government new clause 10—Joint crime and disorder committees.

Government new schedule 1—Further provision about crime and disorder committees of certain local authorities.

Government amendments Nos. 95, 96 and 103.

 
Column Number: 198
 

It might be helpful if I were to explain how we shall proceed. I had rather hoped that Mr. Conway would be chairing this part of the proceedings. At the end of the debate, either the Committee will vote on amendment No. 108, or it will be withdrawn in the normal way. The question that clause 15 stand part of the Bill will then be put without further debate. Government new clauses and new schedules will be dealt with without debate at the appropriate time—after we have concluded and disposed of schedule 7. Government amendments will be called formally later.

If hon. Members want a separate vote on amendments to Government new clauses, they need to make that clear during the debate. They can be called after the Government new clauses have been read a Second time.

Martin Horwood: Mr. Pope, you will be relieved to hear that we shall not call for any complicated separate votes that will make life difficult for everyone.

I shall start with amendments Nos. 108 to 110, which are essentially probing amendments on what is, otherwise, broadly a welcome set of provisions. I think that I should declare myself a supporter of the concept of the community call to action, which is an important idea that may help to improve local involvement, and people’s feeling of involvement in the policing and criminal justice process. I am also a fan of overview and scrutiny committees as an idea, on the strength of my experience of health overview and scrutiny committees.

The three amendments that I referred to are, nevertheless, probing amendments that are intended to show the possible risk in the clause, and the extent to which the community call to action could become a vehicle for unreasonable demands to be taken up by official bodies. We are not saying that there is any risk that mob justice will develop, but the risk with any call to action is that those who call loudest may be heard most. The Government should be alert to that risk.

1.45 pm

The process could give undue weight to a particularly vocal minority, or even majority, in some communities, which might in turn place an unfair or inappropriate focus or pressure on particular individuals or minority groups in an area. We tabled three amendments inserting the word “reasonable” to give a slightly higher burden of reasonability on the process, if that is a proper word. In particular, as a local councillor decides at the first stage whether to bring something to an overview and scrutiny committee, I am sure that those who have been local councillors, as I have, would want a slightly greater legislative reason or excuse in some circumstances to refuse unreasonable requests from members of the public. It would be helpful to raise the bar slightly. I should appreciate the Minister’s thoughts on that.

Amendment No. 111 would tighten slightly clause 15’s definition of a local crime and disorder matter, making it clear that it involved broadly criminal behaviour. Government new clause 8 addresses that to a large extent, so that amendment need not detain us for too much longer.

 
Column Number: 199
 

Looking generally at the model of overview and scrutiny committees, I think that they work well. My local health overview and scrutiny committee has provided an incredibly valuable forum for laying important issues before local representatives in a format that they can appreciate. They can debate openly and publicly, and the committee can use sanctions including, in the most extreme cases, referral to the Secretary of State.

It is not quite as clear that the overview and scrutiny committees laid out in the Bill have such clear responsibilities and roles. For instance, do the police need their approval to proceed with particular policing methods or strategies? Can the overview and scrutiny committee refer a matter to anyone if it is not happy? At the moment, the only sanction that seems to be available at the end of the process is the power to require local CDRP partners to attend the next meeting. That should really put the fear of God into them. It is not quite the same level of sanction that the health overview and scrutiny committees enjoy.

Which CDRP partners will be asked to respond? That too is not clear in the explanatory flow chart provided by the Department or in the Bill. Will the CDRP chair respond? Will the local councillor, the police or the police authority? Will they have the chance to say exactly which CDRP partners are to respond to the overview and scrutiny committee? The new section 21B(5)(g)(i) says that the overview and scrutiny committee can specify

“the periods within which—

(i) a councillor is to deal with a request under section 21A(4)”.

If the overview and scrutiny committee chooses to say on a substantive matter, “You shall respond within three days,” that is quite an onerous responsibility to place on a single voluntary councillor.

---

Prepared 24 March 2006