The Minister of State, Home Office ()
(Con):...Police and crime commissioners and, in
London, the Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime and the Common
Council of the City of London will also have a discretionary
power to monitor the performance of the specified authorities
against their shared objectives. Furthermore, community safety
partnerships, which may be the chosen partnership to deliver on
the duty in certain areas, already have a statutory requirement
to keep the implementation of their strategies under review for
the purposes of monitoring effectiveness, make any changes to
such strategies where necessary or expedient and publish the
outcomes of each review...
(LD):...We support Amendment
65, to which I have added my name, which refers to the provision
of information to local policing bodies, which under Clause 13
“may assist” and/or “may … monitor” and/or “may report” on the
actions taken in their area to tackle or reduce serious violence.
This raises another fundamental issue: who is in charge and
ultimately responsible for preventing and tackling serious
violence? Is it crime and disorder partnerships or one of the
specified authorities—in which case, which one—or Police and Crime
Commissioners Is that not an important part of
what PCCs are elected to deliver: to prevent and tackle serious
violence? Is that not one of the major matters that they should
be judged on by the electorate when it comes to re-election?
According to the Bill, they “may assist”.
There is nothing more certain to fail than when something is
everybody’s responsibility and therefore no one’s responsibility.
In any event, as directly elected mayors and Police and Crime
Commissioners are only assisting in preventing and
tackling serious violence or monitoring or reporting on it—and
only if they want to, according to the Bill’s wording—the
amendment ensures that any information supplied to them in their
largely observer role is depersonalised.
For the reasons I have already stated, we also support Amendment
67 in the name of the noble Lord, , which would remove the power
to compel people to divulge information to local policing bodies
and remove any obligation to keep information confidential.
Directly elected mayors and Police and
Crime Commissioners already have considerable de
facto authority in their local areas from their electoral
mandate, without the need for legal powers to force other bodies
to provide them with information. Clause 16 is not necessary and
should not stand part of the Bill. To suggest that anyone in a
position of trust and responsibility who is working with the
issues and people affected by serious violence needs to be
coerced, to have a legal duty placed on them to collaborate and
to pass information that is essential to the prevention and
tackling of serious violence to the appropriate authorities, is
an insult and is likely to be counterproductive...
To read the whole debate, CLICK HERE
