34. Written evidence from the Welsh Local
Government Association
INTRODUCTION
1. The Welsh Local Government Association
(WLGA) represents the 22 local authorities in Wales. The three
national park authorities, the three fire and rescue authorities,
and four police authorities in Wales are associate members. The
Association seeks to provide representation to local authorities
within an emerging policy framework that satisfies the key priorities
of our members and delivers a broad range of services that add
value to Welsh Local Government and the communities they serve.
2. In response to the request by the Welsh
Affairs Committee, the WLGA would like to submit the following
written evidence to the Committee's Inquiry into the Police Service,
Crime and Anti-Social Behaviour in Wales.
EVIDENCE
3. Local Government and Community Safety Partnerships
in Wales
3.1 Local authorities in Wales have embraced
their responsibilities as statutory members of Community Safety
Partnerships (CSPs) under the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 and
are committed to providing the best possible services that enhance
the lives of the people of Wales. Local Government in Wales fully
endorses the principle that partnership working across agencies
is the best means of delivering safer communities to the people
of Wales. The 1998 legislation in many respects remains a relatively
new piece of legislation. Along with other partners, local authorities
have had to undergo significant cultural changes in the way that
they operate in order to ensure the long term success of multi-agency
partnership working in the area of community safety. Since 1998
CSPs have faced increasing demands, by both central government
and the Welsh Assembly Government (WAG), as further legislation
and guidance have been published. It would be more than fair to
say, however, that local authorities have successfully risen to
this challenge. Since their inception CSPs in Wales have steadily
progressed in their development and operation, and have accumulated
many successes.
3.2 As current involvement has proven, local
authorities have a key role to play in the community safety agenda
of local communities. Perhaps nowhere is this more true than in
relation to the role of Councillors. Local Councillors are the
democratically elected representatives of communities in Wales.
The WLGA welcomes the proposals in the Police Reform White Paper—Building
Communities, Beating Crime: A Better Police Service for the 21st
Century—to enhance the role of Councillors in relation to
community safety. This move recognises that as the democratically
elected representatives of communities, local Councillors have
much to give in relation to addressing issues around community
safety, particularly by ensuring that the needs of local communities
are realised. The WLGA has also welcomed further proposals in
the White Paper for increased statutory responsibility on local
authorities to address community safety issues.
3.3 One area in particular where local authorities,
working in partnership with the police and the courts, have played
a significant role in the community safety agenda is in tackling
anti-social behaviour. For the most part, ASBOs in Wales have
been greeted warmly by the public, particularly by those communities
who have suffered the consequences of anti-social behaviour. ASBOs
should, and indeed are regarded, however, as a measure of last
resort. The emphasis should be on early intervention to tackle
the issues which can lead to anti-social behaviour, and on diversionary
activities. Figures for Cardiff demonstrate the effectiveness
of early intervention: between January 2003 and January 2005,
729 first warning letters were issued; 167 second warning letters
were issued; 56 individuals were involved in third warning meetings
with a Chief Inspector, of which 32 signed Acceptable Behaviour
Contracts; and 20 ASBOs were ultimately issued.
3.4 Local government and its relationship
to CSPs in Wales enjoys a particular advantage over its English
counterpart. CSPs in Wales benefit from co-terminousity with unitary
authorities. The difficulties and complexities for Crime and Disorder
Reduction Partnerships (CDRPs) in England operating within two-tier
authorities has recently been highlighted by the Home Office Review
into the Partnership Provisions of the Crime and Disorder Act
1998.
4. THE NAW CURRENT
REVIEW OF
THE LOCAL
AUTHORITY STRATEGIES,
AND ITS
POTENTIAL IMPACT
ON THE
COMMUNITY SAFETY
AGENDA
4.1 The overall aim of the Welsh Assembly
Government's Plan Rationalisation Programme is to rationalise
and reduce the number of plans that the WAG requires local authorities
to produce. In particular, it seeks to subsume the current set
of specific plan requirements within the wider planning and improvement
framework, leading to greater clarity and consistency and lower
administrative burdens. The Programme Board oversees overall progress
whilst 6 expert sub-groups, one of which has the Community Safety
remit, are responsible for the detailed assessment of planning
requirements in their areas. The WLGA has estimated that working
on required plans takes up to £20 million of resources in
local government. For this reason the WAG is committed to establishing
firm proposals and are hoping to implement them by April 2005.
4.2 The Community Safety sub-group includes
representatives of the WAG, the WLGA, local authorities, the Audit
Commission in Wales and the voluntary sector. Following its second
meeting the sub-group undertook a consultation with key stakeholders
inviting views on the proposal to remove the requirement to produce
three year Community Safety Strategies. It was stressed, however,
that despite the removal of the requirement to produce strategies
local authorities should continue to be subject to a duty (as
per s.17 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998) to exercise their
function and that there would still need to be effective planning—strategic,
business, operational—for local authorities and partners
to decide, although the Audit Commission and Wales Audit Office
should continue to evaluate robustness of the planning processes
as part of the Wales Programme for Improvement and long term aims
should be represented in each local authority Community Strategy.
4.3 Responses to the consultation were generally
supportive of the Sub-group's proposals. In particular respondents
felt that removal of the requirement would reduce the administrative
burden on CSPs, with respondents highlighting the cost of undertaking
the audits and producing the strategy in both administrative and
financial terms. Respondents also expressed that while community
engagement was of paramount importance, the three-yearly audits
only rarely uncovered issues of local concern that CSPs were unaware
of. This was usually due to the on-going consultation with the
community that takes place by partners individually and the CSPs
collectively. There was also, however, a strong feeling from respondents
of the need to ensure that the removal of the requirement did
not undermine participation in CSPs by partners and other bodies,
nor impact negatively on the profile of Community Safety.
4.4 A number of responses reflected the
sub-group's acknowledgement that both the publication of the Police
Reform White Paper and the review of the Partnership Provisions
of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 would have an impact on the
plan rationalisation programme.
4.5 The Sub-group is currently preparing
its report to be presented to the Programme Board in March 2005.
5. THE SUFFICIENCY
OF THE
CURRENT ENFORCEMENT
MECHANISM (CRIME
AND DISORDER
ACT 1998) FOR
COMMUNITY SAFETY
PARTNERSHIPS
5.1 Section 17 of the Crime and Disorder
Act 1998 is of pivotal importance in ensuring that community safety
issues are addressed holistically. Moreover, mainstreaming community
safety is imperative to the ability of public bodies to deliver
safer communities in Wales and within the UK. There is significant
concern, however, that in spite of this statutory responsibility,
not all public bodies are committed to the community safety agenda
to the same degree. Many attribute this to the fact that s.17
comes with no enforcement mechanism ie it has "no teeth".
Health is often cited as a partner that does not always engage
to the same degree as others. It is important to state, however,
that this is not the case across the board. There are a number
of examples of effective engagement with health throughout Wales.
For example, Cardiff and Swansea CSPs enjoy an involved and effective
relationship with their respective Local Health Boards. This successful
joint-working was recently highlighted by the Mobile Response
Units deployed in both Cardiff and Swansea over the Christmas
period 2004.
5.2 A crucial aspect to ensuring engagement
from all partners is the ability to effectively communicate the
constructive role partners can play and the positive impact engagement
with CSPs can have on the work of individual partners and organisations.
5.3 It is also important to recognise that
some agencies find it difficult to engage to the same degree as
other partners due to a lack of resources. For example, the probation
service teams in Wales have to cover more than 1 CSP.
5.4 Similarly, for local authorities, the
challenges to mainstreaming community safety are far less a result
of unwillingness on the part of other departments/services to
engage with the agenda than the pressures on resources faced by
all local authority services. Notwithstanding this, mainstreaming
requires a significant cultural shift amongst organisations and
individuals and adequate training for both officers and members
is imperative.
5.5 The difficulty in seeking to address
the problems associated with mainstreaming is formulating effective
enforcement mechanisms for s17.
6. THE LEGAL
PERSONALITY OF
THE COMMUNITY
SAFETY PARTNERSHIP:
IE ENABLING
IT TO
CONTRACT SERVICES
IN ITS
OWN RIGHT
6.1 CSPs, as currently constructed do not
have "legal personalities" and as such are not able
to contract services in their own right. They can, however, enter
into a partnership agreement to contract services. The question
essentially is whether a partnership would wish to become a legal
entity to contract services or agree for a member partner to undertake
work on its behalf. This is the current situation for many CSPs
in respect of Substance Misuse. In Denbighshire CSP, for example,
the local authority as the fund holder enters into contracts.
7. SETTING COMMON
TARGETS/GOALS
AS A
MEANS OF
IMPROVING PARTNERSHIP
7.1 One of the biggest challenges faced
by CSPs has been the tension between responding to local needs
and meeting national targets. Overall, nationally-determined targets
have increasingly matched the local priorities determined by the
audit undertaken by CSPs. The one particular exception to this
is the national target to reduce burglary, which in many Welsh
CSPs is not an identified priority. Whilst the relationship between
national and local priorities is not necessarily one of conflict,
greater synergy between the priorities is required. CSPs need
to be able to meet national priorities and targets in a flexible
manner which best meets local needs and situations.
7.2 Another difficulty for CSPs has been
the Home Office's tendency to over emphasise a percentage reduction
in crime as the key measurable outcome for CSPs. This does not
adequately take account of the successful initiatives of CSPs,
for example, youth diversionary activities, substance misuse education
programmes or crime prevention programmes. Not all of the work
and priorities of CSPs are measurable by a percentage reduction
in crime. It is the WLGA's opinion that a reduction in the fear
of crime is a crucial target for CSPs in Wales. Not only is this
immeasurable by a reduction in crime, it has little or no effect
on the perception of crime and the fear of crime. Yet, fear of
crime is a hugely significant issue for a large number of individuals
and communities across Wales and has a huge impact on the quality
of life of Welsh people. The work that CSPs do as part of the
reassurance agenda is of paramount importance.
7.3 Another difficulty for CSPs has been
the relative lack of co-ordination in determining priorities between
partnerships and the police. Traditionally CSP's Community Safety
Strategies have fitted into Policing Plans with only little consultation
and collaboration. Over recent years, however, CSPs have been
working more closely with the police in the production of Strategies.
The proposals in the Police Reform White Paper for a new responsibility
on police authorities to ensure that policing plans are reflective
of Community Safety Strategies is a welcome proposal which formalises
this development and is also recognition of the new thinking in
relation to CSPs especially of their ability to identify local
priorities.
7.4 There are a myriad of targets in relation
to community safety and crime and disorder across different services,
bodies and organisations. There would be some benefit for all
agencies to have common or complimentary targets set at the national
level. At the same time, however, it is imperative for CSPs to
have local priorities as their key drivers and any move which
would undermine this would not be beneficial to local communities.
The key is ensuring a balanced approach where CSPs have flexibility
to meet local needs whilst at the same time contributing to meeting
national targets.
8. PROCEDURES
FOR DATA
SHARING ACROSS
PARTNERS WITHIN
THE COMMUNITY
SAFETY PARTNERSHIPS
8.1 Data sharing between partners is an
essential aspect to the partnership approach. While it is recognised
that more needs to be done in this area, progress has been made.
8.2 Protocols for data sharing have been
put in place in North Wales through Project Dragon. It was anticipated
that this would serve as a pilot leading to a pan-Wales protocol,
although this has yet to be fully realised.
8.3 The issue of data sharing has recently
been highlighted by the Local Government Association's research
into reducing re-offending. The report from that research, Going
Straight: Reducing Re-offending in Communities, highlighted the
need for local authorities and Criminal Justice agencies to share
data in order for responsible agencies, such as local authorities,
be better able to address many of the common issues and risk-factors
associated with re-offending eg housing, employment, and benefits.
The WLGA would support the need for effective data sharing and
believes this would help in ensuring there was a holistic approach
to improving community safety through both reducing potential
crime and disorder instances and supporting the settlement and
integration of offenders within local communities.
9. VIEWS ON
THE ALL
WALES COMMUNITY
SAFETY FORUM
9.1 The membership of the All Wales Crime
and Disorder Forum consists of Chief Executives of Local Authorities,
Chief Probation Officers, Chief Constables, NACRO Cymru, the H
M Prison Service, the WLGA and more recently the National Assembly's
Crime Reduction Unit and Fire Services. However, the Forum has
not met recently and no date has been set for a future meeting.
9.2 With the secretariat provided by Bridgend
County Borough Council, via the Chief Executive, the Forum was
established (in approximately 2001) to address strategic crime
and disorder agenda issues between key partners on an all Wales
basis. Members of the Forum felt it was a useful vehicle in terms
of information exchange between all partners involved in combating
crime and developing community safety and in lobbying on issues
of mutual interest. Agenda items for meetings covered issues such
as drug markets in Wales, youth offenders and secure estates,
and the resource requirements of the crime and disorder agenda.
9.3 As highlighted previously, partnership
working is a critical success factor in being able to provide
a strategic, holistic approach, setting common objectives and
joined up working. Such partnership work needs to be addressed
at all levels. The WLGA supports the need for a strategic Wales-wide
Forum addressing community safety issues. Such a Forum could support
the work of CSP's at the local level, and the formal and informal
mechanisms that currently exist at the regional level (for example,
the South Wales area Overarching Leadership Group). Whilst the
All Wales Crime and Disorder Forum has not met recently, the meetings
that were held identified the potential benefit of discussing
the existing and further developing crime and disorder agenda,
its impact upon the various agencies involved and discussing further
opportunities for developing joint working and sharing information.
Should further meetings of the existing Forum be convened, the
WLGA would be keen to continue in membership.
9.4 The Association is currently seeking
regular annual meetings between the Chief Executives and Chief
Constables of Wales.
10. THE CAPACITY
OF LOCAL
GOVERNMENT (PERSONNEL
AND RESOURCES)
TO PARTICIPATE
IN PARTNERSHIPS
10.1 There are a large number of excellent
practitioners in the field of Community Safety within local authorities
in Wales. As the key drivers of CSPs in management terms, for
CSPs to succeed these staff and appropriate staff structures are
vitally important. There is no distinct pattern for staffing across
CSPs in Wales, with each operating in many differing ways. The
Association believes that having a common staffing structure across
all CSPs is not wholly necessary. What is imperative, however,
is that CSPs have the right level of support from senior officers
and that CSPs have a voice at the highest strategic level within
authorities.
10.2 The funding of dedicated anti-social
behaviour, domestic abuse and substance misuse coordinators has
been a hugely welcome development for CSPs which has helped enable
the progression of projects to tackle priorities in these areas
across Wales. This funding, however, is on a short term basis
and CSPs are concerned regarding the future funding of these important
posts.
10.3 The funding of CSPs themselves is an
area of significant concern for Partnerships. The biggest challenges
facing CSPs is that funding allocations are short term, announced
late in the financial year and are unduly bureaucratic. CSPs are
presently required to produce three year strategies, yet the funding
received is for 12 months only, which accompanied with the late
allocation of funding, makes long-term planning difficult.
10.4 In addition to funding applications
being overly bureaucratic they are also heavily prescriptive,
which combined with the number of funding streams, makes it difficult
for CSPs to obtain funding to tackle locally-identified needs.
Furthermore, the current capital-revenue split does not mirror
the financial needs of CSPs. CSPs are in need of increased revenue
support and far more flexibility around the capital spend.
10.5 Funding streams in England are due
to be merged into the Safer and Stronger Communities Fund. Whilst
it is assumed that funding streams for CSPs in Wales are also
due to be merged, no detailed plans and timescales have yet been
announced.
Rachel Morgan
Community Safety Policy Officer
Welsh Local Government Association
21 February 2005
| 
