Clause 15 - Role of local authority overview and scrutiny committees
Police and Justice Bill
1:30 pm
Martin Horwood (Shadow Minister (Environment), Environment, Food & Rural Affairs; Cheltenham, Liberal Democrat)
I beg to move amendment No. 108, in clause 15, page 12, line 13, after third ‘a’, insert ‘reasonable’.
Greg Pope (Hyndburn, Labour)
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—
(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,
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.
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 (Shadow Minister (Environment), Environment, Food & Rural Affairs; Cheltenham, Liberal Democrat)
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.
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.
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.
James Brokenshire (Hornchurch, Conservative)
My reading of the Bill suggests that it will not be the overview and scrutiny committee that sets those things; the Secretary of State will make regulations under subsections (3) or (4). Does the hon. Gentleman agree with my analysis?
Martin Horwood (Shadow Minister (Environment), Environment, Food & Rural Affairs; Cheltenham, Liberal Democrat)
Not entirely. The hon. Gentleman is right that regulations to specify the time will be set by the Secretary of State, but it will be for the overview and scrutiny committee to request it. The Minister will correct me if I am wrong. In effect, the overview and scrutiny committee will be the immediate agent in deciding whether to impose that period on a councillor. That is the risk to which I draw attention.
There is also the risk of a possible confusion of accountabilities. Many bodies are involved in the scrutiny of police strategy. We have crime and disorder reduction partnerships, overview and scrutiny committees and police authorities, which are all constituted for that purpose. The police are already accountable to the police authority and the Secretary of State. In a sense, the overview and scrutiny committees are accountable to the local population. That overlapping of responsibilities and accountabilities may be a source of confusion unless the Bill or the Secretary of State makes clear who is responsible to whom for what.
Even before the Bill has been passed, the Secretary of State reserves the right under proposed new section 21B to give himself extra powers to direct those bodies. Yet again, we have potential centralisation, with the additional powers of the Secretary of State beginning to creep into a Bill that has not yet been enacted. That is the reason for amendment No. 113, which would provide an extra level of parliamentary scrutiny for such actions being taken by the Secretary of State. I hope that the Minister will find that amendment acceptable.
The clause has the potential to allow for more democratic involvement, with more accountability to the community. In general, we welcome the concept of a community call to action and of a crime and disorder overview and scrutiny committee. However, there is potential for confusion and frustration in the clause, which is the reason for our amendments.
Nick Herbert (Shadow Minister (Police Reform), Home Affairs; Arundel and South Downs, Conservative)
I am very glad that the amendment of the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Martin Horwood) came before mine. He said fluently what I was about to say, and I agree with all that he said.
My amendments address a slightly different but related issue. The hon. Gentleman spoke about the potential conflict and overlapping arrangements between the various committees. It is doubly problematic. It is potentially very bureaucratic—today’s favourite phrase—which is a danger with all such committees and partnerships. In addition, the purpose of the community call for action is to provide a clear and direct means for the public to achieve a response to their concern that crime or crime-related issues are not being addressed properly in their community and that a plethora of bodies may hinder the process.
It will not be clear to the public who is responsible for what. It is barely clear to us. Introducing an additional committee is a confusing process. That confusion is underlined by the fact that, according to the Home Office, the local strategic partnerships will remain the top tier, and the operational functions that we discussed earlier will be executed by the crime and disorder reduction partnerships. They will be setting the local area agreements. However, the crime and disorder reduction partnerships will not be accountable to the local strategic partnerships that set the strategy. According to the Home Office, the crime and disorder reduction partnerships will be expected to account to the local strategic partnerships for their contribution to the delivery of the local area agreement, but crime and disorder reduction partnerships’ primary accountability will be to the new local authority overview and scrutiny committees. I can see some confusion there. One body is setting strategic objectives, and the line of accountability is to a different body.
Martin Horwood (Shadow Minister (Environment), Environment, Food & Rural Affairs; Cheltenham, Liberal Democrat)
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his kind words and his broad support for what I have been saying, and I am in general sympathy with what he is saying now, but I point out that crime and disorder reduction partnerships already account to local strategic partnerships. They certainly do in my constituency.
Nick Herbert (Shadow Minister (Police Reform), Home Affairs; Arundel and South Downs, Conservative)
That is absolutely right, but the Home Office says that the primary accountability mechanism for crime and disorder reduction partnerships under the Government’s proposals, which I assume are in the Bill, will be the local authority overview and scrutiny committees. That accountability is being changed, and it appears that there will be a double accountability, both to the local strategic partnership and to the overview and scrutiny committees. That is the kind of thing that will add to confusion and bureaucracy. Where people or bodies are accountable to a multiplicity of organisations, they have no real accountability at all.
As the hon. Member for Cheltenham said, we are creating a number of different bodies in addition to the police authorities, which are steadily being emasculated and with which a lot of responsibility should lie. I accept that the purpose of the crime and disorder reduction partnerships is to bring together a wider variety of people than just the police, for whom the police authorities are responsible. Nevertheless, I do not think that enough clear thinking has been done about how all the measures will work. I look forward to the Minister’s reply.
My amendment reflects a concern expressed by the Association of Police Authorities that the measures do not oblige councillors to consult first with their crime and disorder reduction partnerships when a complaint is made or an issue raised by somebody in the community. For our edification, the Minister kindly sent us the Home Office’s flow chart. I do not know whether it was available on the website, but I was grateful to be sent it, as I am pitifully grateful for all communications that she sends me. The flow chart says that in step 1, local people will report their persistent community safety problems to the ward councillor. In step 2, the crime and disorder reduction partnership and neighbourhood policing team will attempt to resolve the problem. That seems sensible, but I do not think that it is in the Bill.
Proposed new section 21A(4) to the Local Government Act 2000 says:
“Where a councillor of a local authority is asked to consider a local crime ...
(a) the councillor must consider the matter and respond to the person”.
It goes on to say that
“the councillor may refer the matter to the relevant committee”,
but the relevant committee is not the crime and disorder partnership. It is the overview and scrutiny committee. Although the Home Office’s flow chart shows a step in which the councillor tries to resolve the matter with the crime and disorder reduction partnership and the neighbourhood policing team, that step is not written into the Bill. The councillor could bypass a discussion with the crime and disorder reduction partnership.
At the risk of imposing further bureaucratic provision—I accept that that is the case, but it is not my fault that the amendments were drafted in that way—my amendments would require the councillor to raise the matter first with the responsible authority, by which I hope I mean the crime and disorder reduction partnership. He could go on to refer the matter to the overview committee if it was not resolved by the responsible authority. That places the initial burden of resolving the issue on the crime and disorder reduction partnership. It would be better if the matter was resolved there because it is an existing partnership involving the police. It is important that the partnerships are not, in effect, removed from the process and that there is a direct jump to the overview committee. That is the purpose of the amendment.
Amendment Nos. 138 and 139 would amend clause 15. The Government tabled a new clause, so I have tabled mirror amendments, just in case the Minister is minded to accept the sense of those amendments. I hope that by the time we get to the end of the Committee, she will have accepted one of the Opposition’s amendments. They are important issues, and I look forward to her reply. [Interruption.]
Greg Pope (Hyndburn, Labour)
Order. Members of the public are not allowed in this part of the Committee, which is reserved for Members only. In future, I hope that that is clear. I am sorry to have interrupted you, Mr Herbert.
Nick Herbert (Shadow Minister (Police Reform), Home Affairs; Arundel and South Downs, Conservative)
I had finished, Mr. Pope.
James Brokenshire (Hornchurch, Conservative)
I shall speak to amendment (a) to new clause 9. In essence, it would amend what is currently clause 21B(5)(g)(i), which makes provision for the Secretary of State to fix a time period within which councillors must respond to a community call for action raised with them by a member of the public.
The amendment is a probing one, intended to gain clarification on the expected period. That period is germane—if it is relatively short, there is a risk that a councillor might merely refer the matter to the relevant committee and add to bureaucracy, about which we have already talked, and if it is too long, the public will obviously be frustrated that nothing is being done. It is important that the Committee gets a feeling of where the Government are coming from.
On Second Reading, the Home Secretary said that the power was intended to be a backstop, and that it should only be used when everything else has broken down. I take it that that is the approach. As hon. Members have said, the proposals appear to be very bureaucratic. I am grateful to the Minister for providing the flowchart, but it is not necessarily available to members of the public seeking to resolve antisocial behaviour issues.
James Brokenshire (Hornchurch, Conservative)
It might be on the website, but, owing to social exclusion and other such issues, not everybody has access to the website, particularly those in areas most afflicted by antisocial behaviour and crime.
I am confused also about how the process will sit alongside the safer neighbourhood teams. Surely, the first port of call should not be the councillor necessarily, but the safer neighbourhood team. As we know, the Government are instilling the approach of having mobile phone numbers and e-mail addresses for those in the safer neighbourhood teams. Surely, the new process will add to the confusion, because in some ways, the public should be contacting their safer neighbourhood team rather than thinking, “Ah, we have the community call to action, we will go to our ward councillor.”
That councillor would have to think about how quickly to respond, to whom they must respond, whether it should go to the committee, and if not, whether it should go to the executive committee which would then have to consider whether to take it to the relevant committee, report on it, investigate the matter and make a further report. And what happens after that? Obviously, that process has limited teeth, whereas in practice, the safer neighbourhood teams should be proactive, and have public meetings to engage with the public. The direct link is with the safer neighbourhood team and not the rather bureaucratic and protracted process set out in the Bill.
I am sure that the Minister will say that this is a backstop measure—one perhaps intended to be used in cases in which the relationship with the safer neighbourhood team has broken down or some other frustration has occurred. We could end up with the absurd situation in which people who are unhappy with what is happening in their locality through their safer neighbourhood team make a formal complaint about the police not through this mechanism but through the Independent Police Complaints Commission. A complaint could be made about a councillor if that person did not respond properly, so, again, there could be a bureaucratic mess.
I know that that is not the intention behind the provisions. However, my fear is that the practical effect could be additional delays, whereas the most effective means of dealing with the matter would be to use the safer neighbourhood team and to build a relationship with it. Ultimately, on most low-level crime and disorder, the safer neighbourhood team, working in partnership with the local authority, will be responsible for remedying of the sort of issue set out here. That needs to be the focus, rather than a somewhat bureaucratic mechanism that might do nothing other than make recommendations to the safer neighbourhood team, so the process would go full circle. The safer neighbourhood team is the key; we have already heard the emphasis that has been put on it. I do not disagree with a community call to action, but the provisions before us do not add much to having a good safer neighbourhood team. We should emphasise the importance of having effective policing in the first place rather than using a bureaucratic structure that requires us to go round in a circle.
Hazel Blears (Minister of State (Policing, Security and Community Safety), Home Office; Salford, Labour)
I am delighted that the proposal to introduce a community call to action appears to have widespread and all-party support, despite the final comments of the hon. Member for Brokenshire, which I shall come to in due course. The hon. Member for Cheltenham welcomed the proposals and referred to his experience, as a local councillor, of the effectiveness of overview and scrutiny committees. I, too was a local councillor for some eight years at a time when overview and scrutiny committees were just being introduced, and as a Member of Parliament, I find that my local scrutiny committee is very effective in holding a range of different partners to account. I am grateful for that initial welcome.
I understand that my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Gwynne), who is experiencing great frustration, was chair of his scrutiny committee and regularly held to account the CDRP as well as youth offending teams and the various partners involved in trying to tackle crime locally. He tells me—I cannot think of a way of saying this in parliamentary terms—that “we kicked butt on many occasions.” I am sure that he was very rigorous in his scrutiny of those organisations, but that he did it in a friendly and constructive way with his local partners.
The Government amendments are fairly straightforward. They seek to ensure that we have the same provisions for overview and scrutiny and for community call to action in the small number of authorities that have not adopted the format of a local authority cabinet and a leader. Some councils still operate a traditional committee structure. Rather than seek lengthy drafting amendments to the Bill, we have drafted some all-encompassing new clauses that deal with authorities that are organised in a range of ways. Every community should have the powers set out in the Bill.
We said in the respect action plan that we would introduce a community call to action to enable local residents to get action taken not just by the police but by a range of community safety partners if they had problems that had existed for a considerable time and had not been addressed. We are on record as having said that we view these powers as powers of last resort, not as a mainstream way of doing business. Where there is good, effective neighbourhood policing, local communities should not need to resort to the mechanisms that we have set up here. All of us want problems to be resolved at the earliest opportunity, but members of the public in some of the communities that I visit still sometimes experience problems such as abandoned cars, graffiti, gangs hanging around, and intimidation, and those problems are sometimes not properly dealt with by all the partners.
The police also sometimes feel frustration because they do not think that the scrutiny to which they are subject is necessarily applied to all the other partners. Equally, other partners may say that the police need more accountability. At local level there is consensus: all the partners want to make sure that everyone is playing their part in tackling local community safety problems. That is exactly what the powers in question are designed to do.
I am a bit disappointed in Opposition Members, particularly the hon. Member for Brokenshire—[Laughter]—because of their lack of confidence and faith in local councillors. The thrust of the community call for action is ensuring that the councillor is the advocate for the community. That is what councillors are elected for, and that is their job. The Local Government Association was pleased that, rather than creating a different set of mechanisms to deal with the problems, we chose to put local government at the centre of the process of dealing with those problems in communities.
That is why we want people in the first instance to go to their local councillor, who then has a duty only to respond. I remind the hon. Member for Cheltenham that the councillor can take a view that the matter in question is not one that it would be appropriate to pursue through the process. The Bill requires the ward councillor to respond, but not necessarily to resolve the issue. The response could be that the matter will not be taken further, if it is considered that the complaint is frivolous or vexatious, or not worth pursuing. I hope that that reassures the hon. Gentleman.
Martin Horwood (Shadow Minister (Environment), Environment, Food & Rural Affairs; Cheltenham, Liberal Democrat)
That gives me some reassurance, but under new section 21A(4)(b) the first thing expected of a councillor would be to
“consider the matter and respond to the person who asked him to consider it, indicating what (if any) action he proposes to take”.
There is thus an onus, in law, on the councillor to take some action in response.
Hazel Blears (Minister of State (Policing, Security and Community Safety), Home Office; Salford, Labour)
The section states that the councillor
“must consider the matter and respond to the person who asked him to consider it, indicating what (if any) action he proposes to take”.
Therefore the councillor could respond, “I do not propose to take any action, because I think your complaint is frivolous or vexatious, or not worthy of a response.” As the locally elected member he or she would have the right to do that; it would be perfectly proper, which is why the provision takes that form. The subsection also provides that the councillor may refer the matter on, but it is perfectly proper for him to act as the gateway to the system.
It has been put to me that making the local councillor the centre of the matter may be difficult if the relevant councillor is not as active as one might want. However, it is important to use the democratic process to get action. If other mechanisms are set up, bypassing local councillors, the importance of local government in our system is undermined. Many of the reforms in the Bill are to do with making a stronger relationship between the police and local government, because that is the way better to tackle the problems of crime and disorder.
James Brokenshirerose—
Hazel Blears (Minister of State (Policing, Security and Community Safety), Home Office; Salford, Labour)
I give way with great pleasure to the hon. Member for Brokenshire.
James Brokenshire (Hornchurch, Conservative)
I thank the Minister for her creation of what I hope will be my new seat at the next election. Brokenshire sounds very good, and I am very grateful to her.
Perhaps she could clarify a couple of points for me. What sanctions should apply to councillors who do not comply with the call to action? Does she agree that there could be a confusion in the public’s mind, given that the emphasis is on publicising the contacts with the safer neighbourhood team? Without denigrating the role of the councillor in the local community, surely the focus, including publicity, should be on the safer neighbourhood team, at least in the first instance. My understanding of the structure is that it is only if there is a problem that it should be necessary to rely on the mechanism in question.
Hazel Blears (Minister of State (Policing, Security and Community Safety), Home Office; Salford, Labour)
My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary makes the point that perhaps Surrey and Sussex might be Brokenshire. Maybe that is dangerous territory. My apologies to the hon. Member for Hornchurch (James Brokenshire) for getting it so wrong. I have always thought of him as having a fiefdom in his own shire, like a lord of the manor.
I am delighted that he is so supportive of the safer neighbourhood teams that this Government have implemented as part of our commitment to neighbourhood policing. I am delighted, too, that he thinks that they are doing such a good job. He is right: safer neighbourhood teams will receive publicity to build relationships and contact. I hope that the community call for action will not languish on the Home Office website, but be part of a proper communication with local people about the police’s new powers to tackle the range of issues that concern them.
If we are genuinely to empower people, it is important to give them the information that they need to get the authorities they rely on to take action to tackle the problems that are important to them. I quote a statement by the right hon. Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron) on Tory aims and values:
“We will stand up for the victims of state failure and ensure that social justice and equal opportunity are achieved by empowering people and communities”.
Nothing empowers communities more than the kind of power that we have set out in the respect plan, particularly the community call for action. It is radical, innovative, new, creative and imaginative, and it is about shifting power from the institutions of the state—the local authorities and police—into the hands of local people, so that they can challenge and get action on the things that are important to them.
The Government are doing something practical about the words “empower communities”. In marked contrast with the Conservative party, this Government are introducing practical mechanisms, so that local people who have been the subject of antisocial behaviour for far too long can get the authorities to respond properly. It is not a mainstream way of doing business. Because of the improvements that we are bringing to neighbourhood policing and our massive investment, particularly in safer neighbourhood teams, hopefully, people will not have to resort to that power every day.
Lynne Featherstone (Shadow Minister, Home Affairs; Hornsey and Wood Green, Liberal Democrat)
The Minister said that some councillors might be more rigorous and responsive than others. What if a councillor believes that there is no action to be taken? What if they are not very responsive? What will the community member do who can get no action?
Hazel Blears (Minister of State (Policing, Security and Community Safety), Home Office; Salford, Labour)
There are two things to say about that. If the councillor does not take action, the local residents will have the right to refer that directly to the executive of the council. We will set that out in guidance, with time scales and periods in which they must respond.
It is a democratic process. If the councillor, from whichever party, is not doing their job, the remedy lies in the elector’s own hands. Local authorities can also take measures. If people are not performing the duties that they are there to do, councils have internal mechanisms to deal with them. There is a series of ways to make it work.
Several hon. Members have questioned whether the overview and scrutiny committees will be effective. A recent survey of health service scrutiny found that 71 per cent. of issues raised with overview and scrutiny committees led to policy or decision changes resulting from the committees’ input. Overview and scrutiny committees are not bodies without teeth. They will not simply be talking shops. In many cases, although not all of them, the committees’ ability to examine the performance of a service leads to performance improvements and changes how the service operates. Another recent survey found that 45 per cent. of people who raised issues felt a significantly higher satisfaction level as a result of getting in touch with the committees.
The hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs said that the partnership in his area was initially sceptical about partnership working, but it has developed over a number of years and the people involved now feel that it is the best way—those are his words—to bring all the partners together at local level to tackle such issues. Equally, we shall have the same kind of scepticism about—
Nick Herbert (Shadow Minister (Police Reform), Home Affairs; Arundel and South Downs, Conservative)
Why are they going to be abolished?
Hazel Blears (Minister of State (Policing, Security and Community Safety), Home Office; Salford, Labour)
They are not going to be abolished.
Nick Herbert (Shadow Minister (Police Reform), Home Affairs; Arundel and South Downs, Conservative)
Why merge them, then?
Hazel Blears (Minister of State (Policing, Security and Community Safety), Home Office; Salford, Labour)
They are not going to be merged. The crime and disorder reduction partnerships will decide for themselves the most effective way to come together and to serve the local community. That is localism.
I can tell the hon. Member for Cheltenham that overview and scrutiny committees were initially viewed with scepticism, but as they develop more capacity and as the system becomes more rigorous, they will gain the same kind of respect that crime and disorder reduction partnerships have gained for the way in which they operate.
Amendments Nos. 138 and 139, tabled by the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs, would insert an extra step and allow the councillor to resolve matters with the responsible authority. Given the assurance that the guidance will include a provision that councillors should attempt to resolve the issue with the relevant responsible authority, the amendments are unnecessary. It is important that the councillor tries to deal with the matter informally and at an early stage.
Amendment (a) to Government new clause 9 would remove the ability to specify the periods within which councillors would need to deal with a request. It is vital that such periods should be in place, otherwise a councillor could sit on an issue and not take action. It is important for the community that the councillor should act.
Finally, I turn to the accountability of the local strategic partnership and the CDRP. For the sake of clarity—such matters can be full of jargon and technical detail—the CDRP will be accountable to the LSP for delivery of the commitments that it has made through its local area agreements. The LSP is the overarching partnership that considers local area agreements. Publicly accountability will be through the overview and scrutiny committee.
It is not impossible to have a different set of accountabilities. There does not have to be simply one line of accountability. The police have direct accountability at force level to the police authority. Equally, with local government, they will make an important contribution to the community safety agenda. We do not want a silo of police accountability, which is simply about policing. We also want horizontal accountability, input into community safety policies and a much closer relationship, with local government, the elected member for community safety and the portfolio holder having a much more visible role, together with the borough commander.
That system of accountability will give the public a sense that those groups are responsible for delivering crime and disorder policies. Such accountability and answerability will make the system stronger and more rigorous at the local level, and it will give the community the assurance that those people are responsible to them. I therefore ask the hon. Member for Cheltenham to withdraw the amendment.
Martin Horwood (Shadow Minister (Environment), Environment, Food & Rural Affairs; Cheltenham, Liberal Democrat)
I thank the Minister for her comments. I am reassured on some matters, although I am not sure that she has addressed some of the specific problems that I pointed out, such as the risk that vocal minorities might sometimes overwhelm the process, and the fact that onerous responsibilities will be placed on ward councillors. I hope that she will take those into consideration.
Speaking as a former ward councillor, I am aware that many responsibilities and duties, and much casework have already landed on councillors’ desks. I was quoting my experience in that context; I have attended overview and scrutiny committees only since becoming an MP. Far be it from me to give campaigning tips to members of other parties, but it is extremely useful to attend the local overview and scrutiny committee. Even as an MP, one can find out a lot of useful information from that forum.
I disagree with the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs—in the county of Brokenshire—when he appeared to reject the idea of using an overview and scrutiny committee. I apologise, but I meant to say that I disagree with the hon. Member for Hornchurch, not with the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs.
The hon. Member for Hornchurch nevertheless raised an important point about the novelty of involving local ward councillors in law and order. It is not something that members of the public would naturally know about or understand. I look forward to a Government advertising campaign enlightening us about that. As I said, however, I support the basic model of involving a ward councillor and using an overview and scrutiny committee.
I have much sympathy with the attempt by the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs to add further detail to the Bill. However, if guidance can be provided less formally than in the Bill, it is not necessarily right to lay out a cast iron process in legislation on how things should be done. If, for instance, a ward councillor is asked to deal with an outbreak of antisocial activity in, say, Carnarvon park or Naunton park, they might realise that they could resolve that by first talking to local officers or the crime and disorder reduction partnership, without having to be told to do so by the Bill.
If, however, there is a riot in the councillor’s constituency that they feel has been mishandled by the local police, they might have to take that immediately to the overview and scrutiny committee for an inquiry. I think that common sense ought to have some role, and therefore I am not sympathetic to amendments Nos. 138 and 139, although I am slightly concerned by the Minister’s response, which was that yet more guidance, timetables and timelines will be issued to local councillors. I hope that those will be measured and will not place disproportionate responsibilities on local councillors.
In summary, I am content to seek to withdraw the amendment, but I think that the debate has highlighted the potential for confusion. The Minister said that we do not want to have responsibilities in silos, but there is a risk of it looking less like a silo and more like a haystack. Clarity of function and purpose is needed, although we should retain the overview and scrutiny committee and community call to action models, which have great value.
Nick Herbert (Shadow Minister (Police Reform), Home Affairs; Arundel and South Downs, Conservative)
I am grateful for the Minister’s assurance that mergers of crime and disorder reduction partnerships, about which I expressed concern, will not be compelled by the Government. I think that that is what she said, and that is important. It will reassure members of successful crime and disorder reduction partnerships at a district level. They should be allowed to maintain that configuration if they judge that that is right for the local community.
The Minister said that guidance on the initial referral to the crime and disorder reduction partnership would do, and that it was not necessary to put it in the Bill. I have some problems with that. First, all the other steps are written into primary legislation, yet that step, which should be the first and an important one, because if at all possible, the matter should be dealt with by the crime and disorder reduction partnership, will be subject to guidance. That is anomalous. Either all the steps should be the subject of guidance, which presumably would not be satisfactory, or they should all be in the Bill. As it is, some steps are in the Bill, and some are not.
On a more substantive point, if something is only a matter of guidance, it is not necessarily enforceable. All the other steps are enforceable. The councillor and certain committees must take action, but referral to the CDRP, although desirable, will not be enforceable. That is an important matter. The hon. Member for Enfield, North (Joan Ryan) is shaking her head—I do not know whether she is shaking it at me.
Joan Ryan (Government Whip (technically a Lords Commissioner, HM Treasury); Enfield North, Labour)
I just think that the hon. Gentleman is repeating his speech.
Nick Herbert (Shadow Minister (Police Reform), Home Affairs; Arundel and South Downs, Conservative)
I am not. I had not mentioned enforceability—the specific point that I am now raising, and which was raised by the Association of Police Authorities. That is a serious matter and I do not think that the hon. Lady should be shaking her head. I am entitled to respond to the Minister’s dismissal of my suggestion.
I was not entirely persuaded by what the Minister said about accountability, because she used different words from those used in the Home Office’s guidance, which says that the primary accountability for crime and disorder reduction partnerships will be to the local authority overview and scrutiny committee. I think therefore that we have successfully made the point that there is a potential conflict. Her response did not seem to be consistent with the Home Office’s guidance, which we will read carefully. The potential bureaucratic overlap will have to be examined.
Finally, I shall respond briefly to the Minister’s general points about community empowerment. We are happy to support the mechanism for a community call to action. However, it is subject to our earlier deliberations in Committee that it was no substitute for proper local accountability, which should be achieved through the ballot box. [Interruption.] The Minister says from a sedentary position, “Elected chief constables.” We have never suggested that chief constables should be elected.
Hazel Blears (Minister of State (Policing, Security and Community Safety), Home Office; Salford, Labour)
I was referring to the hon. Member for Harwich (Mr. Carswell), who has said that his policy is to have elected chief constables.
Nick Herbert (Shadow Minister (Police Reform), Home Affairs; Arundel and South Downs, Conservative)
I am happy to tell the right hon. Lady that the proposal, as she knows, is for either directly elected local police authorities or an elected official to whom the chief constable will respond. I am talking about the substitution of local accountability for the national direction that chief constables are increasingly under. That would be a form of community empowerment.
We are discussing a reserve power. The Minister conceded that it is only to be used, she hopes, in exceptional circumstances. It is different from a direct form of local accountability. To suggest that it is in some way a dramatic new form of accountability is to over-egg the proposal considerably. By its nature, it will be bureaucratic and highly procedural. Complicated steps are built into it. It will not be a satisfactory alternative to the sort of local accountability that we have proposed. While we are happy to support the provision as a step in the right direction, I want the Minister to be clear that we have worries about it.
James Brokenshirerose—
James Brokenshire (Hornchurch, Conservative)
I want to clarify a couple of points. I have emphasised that my amendment was a probing amendment. I do not oppose local councillors playing an active role in their communities. I believe strongly in that. I do not want the provision in some way to detract away the need for effective local policing. That should solve the problems. It is the key element. If the safer neighbourhood teams are being effective, they will be holding public meetings and will be hearing loudly and clearly a call to action.
Martin Horwood (Shadow Minister (Environment), Environment, Food & Rural Affairs; Cheltenham, Liberal Democrat)
The hon. Gentleman is a little puzzling. He earlier welcomed the concept of a community call to action, but he now seems to be suggesting that that can be done under the current structures and without using an overview and scrutiny committee as the model. As a result, not much will be left of a community call to action. What form will it take without the proposals?
James Brokenshire (Hornchurch, Conservative)
My reading of the Bill is that the measure is intended as a back-up and that it should be used only when the existing practical mechanisms of policing on the ground and the crime and disorder reduction partnerships are falling down. That is my understanding of what the Home Secretary said on Second Reading and from everything that I have heard the Minister say today. The measure is supplementary; it sits alongside the policing model.
Given the practicalities of safer neighbourhood teams in operation, I know that they will be holding public meetings. In many ways, if matters are working effectively, the public will already be directing their attention to particular problems within their local community. I certainly support practical, effective policing on the ground. The issue is whether the safer neighbourhood teams will be properly funded and supported, and whether they will have the protection in the wards that is envisaged at the moment, but which may start to be watered down. The call to action is a fall-back measure to act against that.
I welcome the proposal, but it needs to be a fall-back measure. It should not be seen as detracting from effective neighbourhood policing, which is what we all want in communities throughout the country.
Martin Horwood (Shadow Minister (Environment), Environment, Food & Rural Affairs; Cheltenham, Liberal Democrat)
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.