Guidance for the Scrutiny of Crime and Disorder Matters – England Implementing Sections 19 and 20 of the Police and Justice Act 2006

Report: 7
Date: 16 July 2009
By: Chief Executive

Summary

This report informs members of the new statutory powers given to enable Local Authority councillors to scrutinise Crime and Disorder Reduction Partnerships and ensure their accountability. It also advises of the recommended models proposed by the Home Office for the co-option of Police Authority representatives onto these scrutiny committees. The suggested preferred option is Option 2 which would enable the MPA link member to receive a standing invitation to attend the scrutiny meetings as an ‘expert advisor’ or nominate an officer to attend rather than Option 1 which would require the MPA member to be regularly present as full member of the committee.

A. Recommendation

That Members

1. note the new powers given to enable councillors to scrutinise CDRPs and ensure their accountability and the guidance from the Home Office for Police Authority membership of such scrutiny committees.
2. consider the three models proposed by the Home Office guidance for Police Authority membership of scrutiny committees.
3. decide upon a preferred option to recommend to Full Authority which will then be advised to each of the London boroughs to enable them to involve the MPA in their CDRP scrutiny processes.

B. Supporting information

Context

1. Crime and Disorder Reduction Partnerships (CDRPs) were created by the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 to develop and implement strategies to reduce crime and disorder (although they are not called CDRPs in the statute). They exist to ensure that a number of prescribed ‘responsible authorities’ work together to jointly agree and delivery community safety priorities. The responsible authorities are:

The local authority; police force; police authority; fire and rescue authority; primary care trust

2. The responsible authorities have a duty to work in co-operation with the ‘cooperating bodies’ who are probation, parish councils, NHS Trusts, NHS Foundation Trusts, proprietors of independent schools and governing bodies of an institution within the further education sector. It is likely that from April 2010, probation authorities will become responsible authorities and the duties of CDRPs will be expanded to include reducing re-offending.

3. Since 1998, CDRPs have become an integral part of the work of police forces and local authorities in particular, though a wide range of partners may also be involved, tackling a range of local issues to do with safety.

4. Unlike most elements of local strategic partnerships, CDRPs have been subject in the past to a very significant amount of direction, legislation, and targets from the centre. A review of the Crime and Disorder Act concluded in 2006 and subsequent amendments to legislation were made through the Police and Justice Act 2006. This resulted in regulations and guidance that further evolved the work of CDRPs.

The New CDRP scrutiny powers

5. The new powers given to enable councillors to scrutinise CDRPs and ensure their accountability will enable them to formally review and comment upon the work being undertaken to reduce crime and disorder in each CDRP borough.

6. These powers have been given to local authorities’ scrutiny functions by sections 19 and 20 of the Police and Justice Act 2006 (‘the Act’) – as amended by section 126 of the Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act 2007. There have also been regulations passed under section 20 of the Police and Justice Act. These provide local authorities with a framework for the development of an ongoing relationship between CDRPs and scrutiny bodies.

7. The guidance to these scrutiny powers was issued by the Home Office at the end of May 2009. This guidance can be found at www.crimereduction.homeoffice.gov.uk/regions/regions022.htm and is intended to both provide a guidance for councillors and co-opted members of scrutiny panels and for the responsible authorities and communities concerned with Crime and Disorder Reduction Partnerships (CDRPs).

Community safety priorities

8. All CDRPs in England are now part of a new Home Office developed performance framework which is based upon locally negotiated targets. There are four main elements to the performance framework:

• National Public Service Agreements (PSAs) as measured through the National Indicator Set (NIS)
• the Local Area Agreement (LAA)
• Comprehensive Area Assessment (CAA)
• The Place Based Survey

9. Central government identifies its priorities for reducing crime through these PSAs, whereas LAAs reflect local priorities. PSAs and LAAs change periodically; it is important to emphasise that these will reflect, at local level, changes in the community safety landscape in the area, and, at national level, changes in national priorities reflected in government policy.

10. In order to identify and deliver on these priorities CDRPs are required to carry out a number of tasks. These include:

• Preparing an annual strategic assessment. This is a document identifying the crime and community safety priorities in the area, through analysis of information provided by partner agencies and the community.
• Producing a partnership plan, laying out the approach for addressing those priorities and delivering on that plan;
• Undertaking community consultation and engagement on crime and disorder issues
• Sharing information among the responsible authorities within the CDRP.

Scrutinising CDRPs and the Role of the MPA

11. As mentioned above, elected councillors have been given powers to scrutinise both LAAs specific powers to enable effective accountability of the delivery of the work described in 3.3 above.

12. In the guidance the Home Office identifies that the role of Police Authorities is to secure an efficient and effective police force for the area and that this is done by setting the strategic direction for the police in the area for which the authority is responsible, and by holding the Commissioner to account.

13. In establishing the new powers for local scrutiny of crime and disorder reduction the guidance recognises the dual roles of Police Authorities both as responsible authorities within local CDRPs and area responsibilities and the strategic managers of the police service. The guidance seek to formally include these function through proposed models for co-option of Police Authority representatives onto local scrutiny committees.

14. The guidance further identifies that all police officers and staff are accountable to the Commissioner, and the Commissioner to the Police Authority. In order to do this, Police Authorities have an officer structure that supports a committee made up of local councillors and independent members, with councillors holding a majority of one.

15. As stated in the guidance “ The police authority sets the strategic direction for the force by, amongst other things, deciding how much council tax should be used for policing (allocated by the use of precepts) and putting in place local police priorities. In doing so, police authorities also have a statutory duty to consult communities. In holding the (Commissioner) to account, police authorities carry out functions similar to those which the scrutiny committee might seek to exercise. It is important to emphasise that scrutiny bodies and police authorities should work closely together to ensure that their activities are complementary.”

Co-option and police authorities

16. The guidance further states that, “Police authorities occupy a unique position within the landscape of community safety partnerships. They have a clear, statutory role to hold to account the police. In this context, it is vital that local authorities’ community safety scrutiny complements this role. Local authorities should, in all instances, presume that the police authority should play an active part at committee when community safety matters are being discussed – and particularly when the police are to be present.”

17. It is recommended in the guidance that local authorities should take the following steps to involve police authorities in work undertaken by their committees. Each of the three options allows for an incremental level of involvement by the Police Authority in scrutiny; with Option 3 being the most intense.

Option 1

18. One member of the crime and disorder committee should be a member of the police authority. The Home Office envisage this being the approach that will be adopted by most CDRPs. However, they state that there are a number of circumstances where this will not be possible. In many authorities there may be no member appropriate to sit on the committee in this capacity. The principal reasons given by the Home Office are:

• If the relevant local authority representative on the police authority is a member of the executive; or
• If the local authority has no direct member representation on the police authority. There are many areas for which this will be the case.

Option 2

19. The Home Office advise that the second option is for all other circumstances where having a police authority member on the committee will not be possible. In these circumstances, a member of the police authority should be issued with a standing invitation to attend the committee as an “expert adviser”. Ideally this would be a police authority member, but subject to local agreement there may be some circumstances, and meetings, where a police authority officer would be more appropriate. For example, care will need to be taken when inviting police authority members to attend when they are also councillors.

20. Such an advisor would not be a formal member of the committee, but would be able to participate in committee discussion as an expert witness. Steps should also be taken to ensure that, where appropriate, the police authority have a direct input into the delivery of task and finish reviews that involve the police. The level of involvement in such work that is appropriate can be decided between the police authority and the local authority, the authorities delivering the work. This will allow for local differences, and for agreement over further methods of engagement and involvement – the sharing of work programmes and delivery of joint work pertaining to the police, for example.

Option 3

21. The third option would be for committees to consider co-opting a police authority member onto the committee when policing matters are being considered, and it would be for the police authority to decide the most appropriate member to appoint – this can be an independent or councillor member. This would provide a more direct link between the police authority and overview and scrutiny committee and would be particularly relevant if the committee is considering matters directly relevant to policing.

Proposed preferred option

22. The proposed preferred option is Option 2 which would enable the MPA link member to receive a standing invitation to attend the scrutiny meetings as an ‘expert advisor’ or nominate an officer to attend rather than Option 1 which would require the MPA member to be regularly present as full member of the committee.

C. Race and equality impact

None for the purposes of this report.

D. Financial implications

None for the purposes of this report

E. Background papers

• Guidance for the Scrutiny of Crime and Disorder Matters – England: Implementing Sections 19 and 20 of the Police and Justice Act 2006 publish by the Home Office May 2009

F. Contact details

Report author(s): Martin Davis, Head of Engagement and Partnerships, MPA

For information contact:

MPA general: 020 7202 0202
Media enquiries: 020 7202 0217/18

Send an e-mail linking to this page

Feedback