Clause 92
Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Bill
5:00 pm
Bob Neill (Bromley and 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.