Scrutiny of Crime and Disorder Matters – under Sections 19 and 20 of the Police and Justice Act 2006

Report: 8
Date: 24 September 2009
By: Chief Executive

Summary

This report informs members of the newly implemented statutory powers given to local authority councillors to scrutinise Crime and Disorder Reduction Partnerships (CDRPs) and ensure their accountability. It advises the Authority of the processes that may be adopted to review or scrutinise CDRPs, and the Home Office recommended approaches for the involvement of Police Authority representatives. The report identifies that the Community Equalities and People committee on the 16 July 2009, having reviewed the options, recommend to the full Authority that Option 2 (contained within the guidance entitled “National Support Framework: Delivering Safer and Confident Communities) should be adopted as the most appropriate and effective of the options under consideration.

A. Recommendation

That:

1. the new powers given to local authority councillors to review and scrutinise CDRPs and ensure their accountability be noted; and
2. Members adopt the recommendation, from the Community Equalities and People Committee, of Option 2 that link members of the Authority be issued with a standing invitation to attend the relevant local authority CDRP Scrutiny Committee as an expert advisor

B. Supporting information

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. They exist to ensure that a number of prescribed ‘responsible authorities’ work together to jointly agree and deliver 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 with the identified ‘cooperating bodies’ that are:

• The Probation Service
• NHS Trusts
• NHS Foundation Trusts
• proprietors of independent schools
• governing bodies of an institution within the further education sector
• parish councils

3. 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.

The New CDRP Scrutiny Powers

4. New duties have been given to local authority councillors to review and scrutinise CDRPs, and ensure their accountability. This is to be done through a Community Safety Scrutiny Committee (CSSC) to enable them to formally review and comment upon the work being undertaken to reduce crime and disorder in each CDRP borough. The role of the CSSC is to be as “critical friend” of the community safety partnership, providing it with constructive challenge at a strategic level.

5. These powers are contained in the Criminal 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 2006. This introduced the concept of Hallmarks of Effective Crime and Disorder Partnership Work; to provide local authorities with a framework for the development active interventions to tackle and reduce crime.

6. To support the implementation of the Act, a guidance entitled “National Support Framework: Delivering Safer and Confident Communities was issued by the Home Office at the end of May 2009. This guidance can be found at:

http://www.crimereduction.homeoffice.gov.uk/regions/regions022.htm

7. This guidance is intended to both provide advice for councillors and co-opted members of scrutiny panels and for the responsible authorities and communities concerned with the work undertaken by 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 target areas within the performance framework which should be reflected in the local priorities for each CDRP and which it will be the concern of the Scrutiny Committee to ensure are appropriately delivered. These are:

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

9. 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

10. 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.

11. 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 as the strategic managers of the police service. The guidance seeks to formally encourage active participation by Police Authorities in the exercise of these functions has therefore proposed models for the involvement of Police Authority representatives within these local scrutiny committees.

12. The Guidance 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 Police Authority committee. 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.”

13. Consideration should be given to the types of scrutiny that will take place within the relevant committee meetings, as set out on page 18 of the Guidance.

Recommendation for Police Authority Involvement Co-option and police authorities

14. 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.”

15. In considering the options below, the Communities Equality and People Committee (CEP) of 16 July 2009 was mindful of the need to ensure that link members were enabled to be actively involved in the scrutiny work. This is intended whilst acknowledging that by being full members of a Scrutiny Committee but avoiding the potential conflict of interest that is implicit in both being a full member of a scrutiny committee whilst also representing those scrutinised.

16. CEP decided to recommend Option 2 below; which will enable members to be fully advised of the work of the Scrutiny Committee and to contribute to its deliberations whilst avoiding the conflict of interest which would be implicit in Option 1 and 3; as they would require link members to have full membership of the Scrutiny Committee).

Home Office Models for Co-option and police authorities

17. The Guidance suggests 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 Options 1 & 3 being the most intense.

Option 1

18. One member of the crime and disorder scrutiny 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. It is also envisaged that more senior officers or employees will attend any committee meetings. The local authority is required to provide “reasonable notice”, though this is not clarified within the legislation or regulations, but can be agreed by the committee and the police authority.

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.

21. Agreement over these issues should form part of a protocol between the local authority and its partners. 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.

22. To quote from the Home Office guidance, “The vital thing to remember is that clear and sustained engagement between the police authority and the local authority, as equals, will be necessary to make sure that their roles complement each other. This goes beyond attendance at committee, which should be treated as only one element of this engagement. These arrangements, and the unique relationship which is necessary between councils and police authorities, should not divert scrutiny bodies or their partners from the fact that the scrutiny of community safety is about much more than the police force and their activities.

21 Option 3

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. However, the same difficulties are envisaged, as set out in relation to Option 1.

C. Race and equality impact

The active participation of the Police Authority in the scrutiny will enable the police authority to ensure that the principles of equalities and diversity which are embodied in its own policies are thoroughly applied in the deliberations of the Committee and in its review of CDRP work.

D. Financial implications

None for the purposes of this report

E. Legal implications

1. Section 19 of the Police and Justice 2006 (“the Act”), as amended by section 126 of the Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act 2007, places a duty upon every local authority to establish a crime and disorder committee which has powers to review and scrutinise decisions made, or other action taken, in connection with the discharge by the responsible authorities of their crime and disorder functions.

2. The Crime and Disorder (Overview & Scrutiny) Regulations 2009, which complements the above statutory provisions, came into effect in April 2009, and they set out provisions for the exercise of powers by the crime and disorder committee. In particular, the regulations sets out in detail particulars in respect of co-opting of additional members; the frequency of meetings; the information that can be requested by the committee; requirements to attend committee meetings, and recommendations and reports that may be made at committee meetings.

3. The Home Office Guidance “Guidance for the Scrutiny of Crime and Disorder Matters-England” has been issued under section 20 of the Police and Justice Act 2006, and this provides a framework for the development of an ongoing relationship between CRDPs and the Crime and Disorder Committee. The proposals contained within this report are consistent with options set out in the Guidance in respect of Police Authority involvement.

4. The introduction of Crime & Disorder Committees will inevitably create some additional burden of reporting and submission of evidence on the MPA as a “responsible authority” under Act, however additional robust scrutiny should increase community engagement, increase understanding between the works of partners and boost public confidence that partners are acting on crime and disorder matters.

F. Background papers

• National Support Framework: Delivering Safer and Confident Communities published May 2009.

G. Contact details

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

For more information contact:

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

Send an e-mail linking to this page

Feedback