Proceeding contribution from Baroness Henig (Labour) in the House of Lords on Thursday, 6 July 2006. It occurred during Committee of the Whole House (HL) and Debate on bill on Police and Justice Bill.
Police and Justice Bill
moved Amendment No. 104: Page 13, line 24, at end insert ““, provided the councillor has first consulted the responsible authorities”” The noble Baroness said: I shall also speak to Amendments Nos. 109 and 111 in my name. All seek to achieve a common purpose: to ensure that certain safeguards are in place before the proposed community call to action can proceed to the crime and disorder scrutiny committee. First, I wholeheartedly support the aim of these provisions, to bring greater reassurance and responsiveness to community safety. However, I—and colleagues in the police service, police authorities and local authorities—have concerns about how this mechanism might operate. I appreciate that much additional detail will be in the regulations and guidance which will, in due course, be prepared to explain how this feature of the Bill will work. It does not take a particularly overactive imagination to see that there is great potential for misuse and mischief with this mechanism, however, whether by extremist political parties, single-issue fanatics or simply neighbours with a grudge. I fear that scrutiny committees could be overwhelmed with a demand for their services. Even where they are not, the public might have false expectations of what they can realistically achieve, and end up disillusioned. The community call to action is intended as a last resort where other avenues have failed to produce results. My amendments simply seek to make this plain, and ensure that all complaints must be first referred to the local CDRP by a councillor or council executive. That would ensure that the CDRP is aware that there is a problem, and has an opportunity to address the issue, or explain why it does not believe it should. My colleagues in this House should be aware that complaints have often been forwarded by a single person several times. The CDRP must be given the opportunity to say that and to explain that a complaint has already been dealt with, possibly on more than one occasion. Only when the CDRP then fails to take action would the matter be referred to scrutiny. That is the important point. I am sure the Minister will reassure me that this will be addressed in the regulations and guidance envisaged by the legislation, because my noble friend is good at reassuring me that the problems I raise will be addressed. He will not be surprised to hear, however, that I would be happier if it was made plain in the Bill, which may reassure those alarmed at the potential for misuse that this mechanism could represent. I emphasise that I wholeheartedly support the community call for action. It will be an important part of local accountability, but its use must be sensibly, carefully limited. I beg to move.
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 684 c404-5
- Session
- 2005-06
- Chamber / Committee
- House of Lords chamber
- Subjects
- Disability Children Databases Accountability Crime Bail Administration of justice Arrests Anti-social behaviour Community relations Equality Fixed penalties Fines HM Inspectorate of Prisons Local government Offenders Parents Police Powers Membership Prisons Publicity Police authorities Police cautions Race relations Victims Social rented housing Anti-social behaviour orders Parenting contracts Parenting orders Crime and disorder reduction partnerships Hate crime
- Legislation
- Police and Justice Bill 2005-06
- Link
- View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk
Librarians' tools
- Timestamp
- 2024-02-02 10:09:37 +0000
- URI
- http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_335486
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_335486
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_335486