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)
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.