---

Christmas Adjournment

Last Tuesday, I was called by an excited researcher from one of my local radio stations who asked me if I was aware that Leicester had been named as the crime capital of the east midlands. While I was trying to catch my breath, following that astonishing announcement, the young researcher went on to tell me that it was a city in which public services do not work well together and in which not enough was being done to tackle the major problems that many local people face. She also told me that people's health was worse there than anywhere else in the east midlands, and that too many of them were dying early—[Interruption.] Yes, it sounds like Essex, doesn't it? I simply did not recognise the city from the description that the researcher was giving me, although I would not suggest for a moment that it is without problems. When I had caught my breath, I asked her for the source of her information. She told me that it was the Audit Commission. As a former member of the Audit Commission, I took that fairly seriously and agreed to go on air to talk about the matter. Before doing so, I did some research into the background. The description had come from a person called Mary Perry, who is rather grandly titled the Oneplace spokesperson for Leicester. I understand that she is also the Oneplace spokesperson for a number of other places in the east midlands. My research allowed me at least to understand the context of the description. The work that it was announcing is very worth while. It is an attempt to bring together the results of the various inspection regimes that look at local authorities, including the Audit Commission—the lead body involved—the Quality Care Commission, Her Majesty's inspectorate of constabulary, Her Majesty's inspectorate of prisons and Ofsted, and to bring all the data that they produce in their reports together in one place, to make it accessible to the public on a single website. That is of course very welcome. It is some years since I was a member of the Audit Commission. At that time, we used to look forward to the prospect of what was then described—it might still be—as joined-up inspection. That would involve bringing the various regimes together in a way that made sense to the bodies that were being inspected, and to the public, on whose behalf the inspections were taking place. The principles that the Audit Commission followed then, and does now, involve ensuring that the performance indicators used in the inspections are relevant, that they avoid creating perverse incentives, and that the conclusions that are drawn at the end of the inspection processes are firmly evidence-based. Of course, in looking at the inspection, as I hope the Audit Commission and the other regimes that inspect our local authorities and our local bodies now do, I hope that the approach will be robust and independent when necessary, while also being a critical friend rather than a hostile outsider when that is the more appropriate approach. It was with that in mind that I looked at the news release from which the researcher was drawing a picture of the city of Leicester. Indeed, Mary Perry, this Oneplace spokesperson for Leicester, described the city as one where the partnership""is not giving crime a high priority."" She continued:""Recent crime figures are the worst in the East Midlands. Community safety partners need to work together more effectively to reduce crime and make the city safer for local people."" I could go on and refer to other elements that the researcher had drawn out from the press release. I have to say that that description of the city is not one that those involved in the various partnerships and bodies that provide services to the city would recognise—and it is certainly not one that I recognise either. It does not represent what any reasonable person who knows the city would consider to be a balanced judgment about it and the services it receives. The press release is based on broad generalisations and contains, frankly, headline-grabbing snippets. No doubt that was done with the very best of intentions and no doubt it was done with the intention of drawing people's attention to the launch of the new initiative, to the website that lies behind it and the overview that it seeks to give. Frankly, however, it does nothing for the reputation of the Audit Commission or the other inspectorates that contributed to it. The Audit Commission has raised a lot of questions about the data lying behind the news release that described Leicester in that way and led the researcher to conclude that the city was the "crime capital" of the east midlands, but it has not helped to point the way to those who seek to find answers to the questions, which include: what crime sort of crime figures—are they recorded crime figures, reported crime figures, or crime figures as perceived by the victims of those crimes? None of those questions is answered, so I believe that to be shoddy work from the Audit Commission. It would indeed be perverse if Leicestershire constabulary, which has such an excellent record of encouraging people to report crimes and of encouraging its officers to record them when they are reported, were to be penalised as a result of the success of those policies on encouraging the reporting and recording of crimes, yet that is precisely the sort of conclusion that the casual reader would reach from that news release. It would also be perverse indeed if this led to Leicestershire constabulary doing what I understand other constabularies sometimes do—actually encouraging people not to report and officers not to record crimes. It seems to me that, on this occasion, the Audit Commission has made a serious mistake in the way it has sought to promote that new website and the excellent initiative in which it plays a lead part. I have tried to look behind the figures, but in looking at the website, I have frankly not been able to find out how those conclusions were reached or what sort of crime figures were used in reaching them. I have discovered from talking to those who are part of the community safety partnership in Leicester that there are a lot of very unhappy and very committed people who were involved in the promotion of community safety in the city, but who are deeply disappointed, deeply upset and deeply distressed by the resulting publicity that followed the news release. I am deeply unhappy by the approach that has been adopted. I am particularly unhappy because, while it may get a headline, it certainly does not do justice to the city, and it certainly does not do justice to those who are concerned for its well-being. The Audit Commission and the other inspectors have come up with a very simplistic way of describing services in the city of Leicester and, indeed, in other local authority areas up and down the land. It boils down to the use of flags: red flags and green flags. Other hon. Members may well be familiar with such arrangements in their areas. While the use of such simplistic devices may be attractive in terms of drawing attention to things—for instance, the new website—it is over-simplistic in this context, and difficult to justify. I have noted the green flags given to the areas around Leicester, and the lack of green flags relating to any of the services in Leicester itself; I have noted the red flags given to the areas around Leicester, and the red flags given to the city itself; and I have reached the conclusion that the choice of green or red flags is entirely subjective.