[Nick Beale]

S.21(10) of the 2000 Act says you can have non-voting co-optees on an OSC. That sub-section seems still to be in force but I could easily be wrong about that after so many amendments ot S.21 in recent years.

As you say, the 2009 Regulations say that you can only co-opt certain people on to a crime and disorder OSC. That apparently overlooks that you don't have to have an OSC dedicated to crime and disorder, c 'n' d just has to part of a committee's remit. So that appears to mean that the regulations apply to the committee that covers crime & disorder even when it's looking at something else entirely. Since that would make no sense, it's probably true.

One approach (which I couldn't possibly condone) would be to co-opt whoever you like on the basis that (a) your odds of getting caught are practically zero and (b) if you were caught, would it matter?

[Ed Hammond]

We did raise this issue with the Home Office when the regs were put together.

s21(10) is in force, as is the other provision governing co-option (s115 of the LGA 2003)

As we know, primary legislation overrides secondary legislation, even when secondary legislation is newer. I will leave you to draw your own conclusions...

[Paul Ansell]

There is some movement on this topic now. The new white paper on policing makes a Government commitment to allowing community representatives on crime and disorder scrutiny committees. See page 31 of the following:

http://police.homeoffice.gov.uk/publicat...iew=Binary

This is something that Rugby's independent crime and disorder scrutiny committee lobbied hard for and it is gratifying - as well as rather surprising - that the Government seems to be minded to amend the regulations before the election.

[Nick Beale]

Paul Ansell Wrote:The new white paper on policing makes a Government commitment to allowing community representatives on crime and disorder scrutiny committees.

We have those already - elected councillors!