Bob Neill (Bromley & Chislehurst, Conservative)

I beg to move amendment No. 139, in clause 92, page 60, leave out lines 43 to 45.

Joe Benton (Bootle, Labour)

With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 10—Local authority scrutiny of crime and disorder matters

‘(1) Section 19 of the Police and Justice Act 2006 (c. 48) (local authority scrutiny of crime and disorder matters) is amended as follows.

(2) Omit subsections (3) to (7).

(3) In subsection (8) omit “or (7)”.

(4) In subsection (11) omit the definition of “local crime and disorder matters.”.’.

Bob Neill (Bromley & Chislehurst, Conservative)

I shall be as brief as I can in the light of the hour—or the declining light if I am looking out of the window. Our concern both with the amendment and the new clause, which is the other part of the package to achieve the desired result, is that if we go down the current route there will be two schemes for community calls for action—one in relation to crime and disorder issues and one in relation to other issues—and we do not see the logic in that. Very frequently, the sort of issues that are likely to be raised with councillors at the moment and that give rise to community calls for action will overlap between the two schemes. It is not very easy or practical to say that this is a crime and disorder issue and this, for example, is an environment or transport issue—frequently, the two will overlap.

May I give a simple example from my own constituency that applies elsewhere, including across outer London? There is regrettably a problem with youth disorder on buses in London. That can often spill over into bus stops and the surrounding areas. One can readily conceive of scenarios in which people who face that problem in a particular locality might wish to invoke a community call for action. Although that is an issue of disorder, it is also one that involves transport and possibly graffiti, vandalism and damage to the environment as well.

It is not very sensible therefore to require councils to go through two processes to achieve the desired result. If they use the proposals in the Bill, I suppose it could be ruled out of order on the grounds that it is essentially a policing issue. However, if the criminal justice procedures are used, the matter could be related to disorder on buses or damage to buses, and then one may ask where does it stand together? That is a pretty obvious example that many of us would encounter.

It also seems anomalous, if one looks at the very helpful briefing that has been prepared by the Local Government Association, that not only would there be two schemes, but some slightly different criteria in section 19 of the Police and Justice Act 2001 from those outlined in the Bill. There are different criteria for what the issue applies to, who can raise it, and what the powers are. Most particularly, there is no power under the Police and Justice Act for councillors to use any delegated power to try to resolve the issue  themselves. That seems surprising, given the desire to resolve as much as we can locally and to enhance the role of the local councillor.

It is also odd that the Police and Justice Act scheme does not apply to county councils. What is the logic of that? When we think that through, we realise that issues could arise in which it would be appropriate for a county council to get involved. That might not be the most obvious case; probably the district or borough council is the usual first port of call, but I am not sure about what the logical distinction is. In a nutshell, it would be sensible to bring this together.

Another sensible point made by the LGA is that, as well as encouraging the local resolution of issues, the Police and Justice Act provisions allow an appeal tothe council executive if the council declines to refer the issue to overview in the scrutiny committee. That does not seem to apply in the Bill, so why should it be different from any logical point of view?

One could argue that the PJA provisions potentially give too wide a scope for the vexatious and the frivolous appeal. We all have people in our constituencies who are never going to be satisfied with anything. Do we really want to put council officers, perhaps council executives, in the position of having to do an awful lot of work to protect the scrutiny committee from being burdened with that? That is not perhaps a crucial matter, but the distinction does not seem logical, whatever the justification for the appeal process.

I ask the Government to resolve those anomalies, and it seems to us on balance that the scheme proposed in the Bill would be better applied across the piece. That would certainly be a lot easier, because residents themselves would have a one-stop scheme for initiating a period of call for action. I should have thought that sensible and in the interests of what the Government want to achieve.

Patrick Hall (Bedford, Labour)

You might, Mr. Benton, rule me out of order, but I should like to raise a couple of other matters on the clause. We are now concentrating solely on the amendment.

Joe Benton (Bootle, Labour)

If they are general matters that arise from the clause, we shall wait until clause stand part debate.

Angela Smith (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department for Communities and Local Government; Basildon, Labour)

I welcome the comments made by the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst. I understand his desire to have some of what he calls logic in the process. Perhaps when I have spoken and explained the process superficially—to use the word of the day—it will be logical, and there are good reasons why there will be two different processes.

The hon. Gentleman has already explained that taking amendment No. 139 with new clause 10 would have the effect of bringing in community calls for action under the crime and disorder matters, in line with local government matters. There are important differences between the two, for good reasons. In the former—the crime and disorder matters—any person who lives or works in the area can initiate the process known as a community call for action. All that they need to do is ask the councillor who represents them to consider it a crime and disorder matter. The councillor  is then under a duty to respond to that matter, and can refer it to one of the committees that he thinks appropriate.

Crime and disorder and transport are the two examples that the hon. Gentleman gave, so the matter could be addressed by different committees. The councillor’s duty is to respond to the member of the ward—his or her constituent—to say what action the councillor is going to take. It is not just a matter of being able to refer to one committee. The councillor has the power to refer to the crime and disorder committee, but he or she could go to the transport committee and look at both issues at the same time.

Even if no one has asked them to do so, councillors can refer matters to a crime and disorder committee by virtue of the fact that they have perceived a problem in that area. If a councillor declines to defer the matter, the individual who has raised it can, under the local authority operating set of arrangements, refer it to the executive of the authority, which places the person under a similar duty to consider the issue and gives him the option to refer the matter to the crime and disorder committee.

The local government matter is more simple. The only person with power to refer it is the councillor. That puts an onus on the councillor. In our evidence-based sittings, the hon. Gentleman must have heard the concern that was expressed about frivolous or vexatious matters. The councillor and the scrutiny committee are the backstops on such matters. It is a power for the front-line councillor.

The hon. Gentleman referred to the LGA. When it gave evidence to the Committee, it said that it would like the two matters aligned. There is a difference between a councillor who is directly elected to a body and a councillor who is not directly elected. The hon. Gentleman is right in that the local government proposals that we are putting forward mean that a councillor at any level, including a county councillor, can refer the matter. It is important that the councillor has other means by which to deal with the matter under the usual council process, other than by referring it to overview and scrutiny.

Although I understand the hon. Gentleman’s concerns, I shall resist his proposals. The Police and Justice Act 2006 received Royal Assent on 8 November 2006. Its provisions have not even come into force. Parliament decided recently that it wanted community calls for action under the Act to be dealt with in such a way, so there would have to be extraordinarily good reasons to wipe it away and change the process before it has even started to take place. Parliament is not really keen to undo what it has only just done.

The second positive argument centres on the nature of the problems that the Police and Justice Act is intended to address, such as community safety. Whether to align the two matters was considered; on balance, it is reasonable to have a more stringent process in place in respect of crime and disorder, in particular to enable individual citizens to force the pace of change if they need to do so or to force the issue when community safety and crime and disorder are at stake. I hope that, in light of my explanation, the hon.  Gentleman will understand why I am not minded to change matters at this stage. He is smiling at me benignly, so I think that that means he is in agreement.

Bob Neill (Bromley & Chislehurst, Conservative)

I am grateful to the Under-Secretary for her response. I am tempted to say that repealing statutory provisions that have not come into force, let alone been used, is not without precedent. None the less, and despite the fact that my mother is now disappointed in this Committee and as well as in the Committee that discussed the Greater London Authority Bill, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Patrick Hall (Bedford, Labour)

I should be grateful for a couple of points of clarification. Would local government matters that a member of a council can refer to the overview and scrutiny committees include those subcontracted to other bodies outside the local authority? In other words, would scrutiny committees be able to have oversight over such activities if they were referred to them?

Subsection (11) refers to matters that could be excluded from oversight but, under paragraph (b), it seems that anything could be excluded. Is that not too widely drawn?

Angela Smith (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department for Communities and Local Government; Basildon, Labour)

My hon. Friend asked whether contracted services will be included. Yes, anything that affects the service to the citizen from local government will be raised with the citizen’s councillor, in the same way that people currently raise similar issues with their councillor. That gives the councillor the opportunity to raise the matter with the overview and scrutiny committee, if the councillor thinks that that is appropriate. In terms of issues that can be ruled out of order, it would be for the councillor and the overview and scrutiny committee to make a decision, as elected representatives, about whether it is appropriate to pass the matter to the overview and scrutiny committee and for that committee to decide how much time it will give to examining the matter.

This devolutionary measure puts additional powers in the hands of front-line councillors and the overview and scrutiny committees to examine wider issues brought forward by citizens.