[Stephen Bace]

Ed,

We are sure the Home Office recognises that some authorities already have joint arrangements in place with regards to Crime and Disorder Scrutiny that may be built upon. Our Community Safety Overview and Scrutiny Committee is already hosted by one authority (Gloucestershire County Council), has all districts represented and regular meets with the Assistant Chief Constable, Community Safety partnerships and Police Authority.

Members have received regular updates on the progression of the bill and have already discussed its implications on scrutiny in Gloucestershire.

Members would welcome the flexibility to adapt our existing arrangements to fit the Police and Crime Panel 'shape'.

Recognition by the Home Office that this could be an option for local authorities, along with an acknowledgement of the work scrutiny currently does in this area, would be much appreciated.

[Ed Hammond]

Just a reminder about this event on Monday.

I have received a joint response from the North East region but am very keen to hear from other practitioners. The 18 April meeting will apparently be the first of several - although I don't know when the subsequent meetings will be. In fact, I still don't have an agenda for Monday yet, and I only have the loosest idea about who will be there (except me and Matt). All adds to the spice of life.

I am especially keen to hear from colleagues in Wales, where an amendment was made to the Bill at report stage effectively permitting the Secretary of State to impose Police and Crime Panels from the centre, with the Home Office nominating who will sit on the body, as an "alternative" to a locally designed solution. This is designed to "resolve" the current position where the Home Office and WAG are at loggerheads over the introduction of PCPs in Wales, but worryingly the provision will technically apply to England too. We are extremely concerned about this and will be arguing strongly for its removal - having the Home Office arbitrarily decide which authority will host a PCP and who will sit on it flies in the face of, well, everything.

The meeting is at 11am so as long as I get any views (ideally in writing, so I can take them along) by about 10.30 that would be great.

[Ed Hammond]

The meeting was this morning - it was just a preliminary discussion, setting out what future meetings will look at (when those meetings will be, I don't know) so there's not much to say I'm afraid. Most people there were civil servants but there were a smattering of others. All in all it was a group of about fifteen people.

We had some discussions about the powers and composition of Police and Crime Panels, and how they will integrate with existing overview and scrutiny arrangements. We also talked a bit about how commissioners and other local partners will work together - and what powers the Secretary of State will have to intervene when things go wrong. I suggested that Panels could have a similar power to that used by health scrutiny, to make a reference to the SoS if they are dissatisfied with the way the commissioner is doing business - not sure how this went down!

There was also a bit of a discussion about information requirements.

Happily, it seems that the Home Office are of the view that regulations and guidance, when they come (as they apparently will) will be "light touch" and proportionate. Now, I know that we've heard this before, but I see no reason why this won't actually happen this time, simply because they seem to be much more comfortable with the idea of local variation (ie the relationships working differently in different areas) than they used to be.

The Home Office and CLG are apparently having discussions between now and June about the panel/scrutiny relationship, and I'm going to see if I can get involved in those discussions.

[sara turnbull]

Hi Ed,

I'm not clear about how the Home Office proposals would ensure effective local accountability of the police force within force areas that particularly cut across large areas with a number of two-tier authorities. If there is one crime and disorder panel covering the Thames Valley Force area (which covers my authority - Bucks CC) this also includes Milton Keynes, Oxfordshire, Berkshire West and East. This may make it very difficult for councillors to effectively scrutinise as information will be very high level and not necessarily relate to areas that councillors know or represent.

I also can't see how this can help with public accountability as will make it harder for the public to have their say and relate to issues at this level.

I can understand the appeal of one committee mirroring the commissioner's area to civil servants, but some flexibilty to have a number of area committees covering upper-tier areas might be helpful to allow the system to be tailored to local need?

The proposals also don't seem to take into account exising arrangements, so for instance in Bucks we have worked jointly with the districts on crime and disorder issues.

Any information on when the proposals will be finalised to help with our planning would be very helpful.

Many thanks

Sara Turnbull

[Ed Hammond]

Hi Sara,

My original reply was wiped, so this will be shorter!

1. Yes, I agree with you - I think that CSP scrutiny cttees will have to report up to the Panel to "escalate" local issues but local knowledge will continue to be a concern. There is a precedent for this kind of thing in the work of regional assemblies.

2. There will be an amendment tabled in the Lords at some point over the next couple of days/weeks that will insert into the Bill a requirement to pilot the proposals in 1 county area before rolling them out. However the Government may not take this on even if the Lords divides in favour. We will see.

3. Regulations and guidance can be expected in the autumn/winter. We are continuing to argue for increased resources over the transition period - at the moment there will be no money available at all, apart from the £30,000 in the RSG that I expect will come on stream only in 2012/13.

[Ed Hammond]

Quick comment on last night's Lords debate, and the amendment made which would (if it goes through) recast the PCC/PCP as a police authority-style police commission.

It's an interesting debate and deserves a read. Here's a link -

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa...1171000299

The amendment (which was agreed by a majority of 12) gives the PCP the authority to make decisions relating to policing as a corporate body, and obliges them to appoint a commissioner from amongst their number. Consequently the commissioner would be a sitting councillor from one of the authorities in the area or one of the lay members.

My view is that this is even worse than the Government's proposals as it would arguably put one local councillor in a pre-eminent position over others, and inter-authority conflict would be almost inevitable. It wouldn't necessarily avoid the political influence problems which have been cited as the main stumbling block to the Government's plans. But I understand what the amendment is trying to achieve.

What happens now? Well, when the Lords have gone through the rest of the Bill (this was only the first amendment - and it took more than three hours to debate!) more amendments may well have been agreed. There will then be a period of formal, and informal, horse-trading between the two houses. It can be expected that the Government will make concessions - probably bolstering the role and powers of the PCP, or acceding to the demand for pilots in some areas - but the principles of elected police commissioners will undoubtedly remain as it is mentioned in the coalition agreement. As a flagship Government policy, it would be hugely embarrassing for the Government to have to climb down on this and they will do everything possible to ensure that it goes through. If it fails the Home Secretary would certainly have to resign and the Prime Minister's own position would be very shaky.

What this does mean is that the current CLG/Home Office discussions, and the discussions in which we are involved, around the relationship between PCPs and overview and scrutiny, may be thrown into confusion. The proposed election date of May 2012 is looking less and less feasible at the moment.