Examination of Witnesses (Questions 60-79)
HOME OFFICE
7 MAY 2008
Q60 Chairman: On this, to help the
Committee, figure 14 on page 29 deals with data that Mr Curry
was talking about. It makes depressing reading for you. "Percentage
of Crime and Disorder Reduction Partnerships which use different
data sources ... ": accident and emergency data, 42% "Never
use"; Safer School Partnerships, 80% "Never use".
That is pretty poor, is it not?
Sir David Normington: It is not
good enough. This is why, in a sense, as a last resort we have
now put a statutory duty on the partners to share that data. We
should not need to do that really, because what should be evident
is that the benefits of doing this are quite great in monetary
terms; but, since that has not been happening, we have underpinned
it with some statutory powers in the 2006 Act and, on the basis
of that, are then demonstrating in these 22 projects how that
can be done easily.
Q61 Mr Touhig: Sir David, I think
that the Government is to be congratulated on the success of reducing
crime, and the Police Service in particular for their efforts.
However, I would like to follow on from the comments of my colleague
Keith Hill. It is clear from the report that the Home Office's
provision for funding to tackle violent crime is a complete and
utter mess. It is conducted practically on a short-term basis,
according to paragraph 2.26. Crime and Disorder Reduction Partnerships
have little time to plan ahead; money arrives late—that
is the verdict of paragraph 2.28—which is of little good
to partnerships; and, when the money does arrive, it comes with
the requirement that it be spent in a very short and tight timeframe,
which does not allow the partnerships to engage in the voluntary
sector, according to paragraph 2.31. Why is it that the Home Office
takes such a short-term, stop-start approach to funding on an
issue that really needs a sustained long-term solution?
Sir David Normington: I agree
that that is not good enough. We have already substantially changed
it and we will go further. I am personally never in favour of
many one-off, small amounts going into areas, because that is
not usually enough to build the evidence and build the capability.
We have moved 99% of the funding now onto a three-year basis.
Q62 Mr Touhig: You said that earlier.
Sir David Normington: Yes.
Q63 Mr Touhig: But is that sufficient?
We give ourselves five years' employment, roughly, between elections.
Why cannot the partnerships have something more than three years?
Sir David Normington: They cannot
have more than three because the Home Office only has three, and
that is the basis on which the Government—
Q64 Mr Touhig: So you need to start
kicking the Treasury, do you?
Sir David Normington: I am always
very happy for someone else to be kicked, yes!
Q65 Mr Touhig: Okay, but I do think
that it is something worth looking at. It is often a problem because
of the short-term funding arrangements. It is not only on money
that your department is bad in passing things on: you do not share
information. Again, Keith Hill was exploring this point. Everyone
agrees that the Safer School Partnerships are very effective,
but do you not think it is a problem that you have only a very
vague idea where they are based? You are not even sure how many
we have, according to paragraph 2.25 on page 22. Should you not
know how many there are?
Sir David Normington: I think
that either we or the Department for Children, Schools and Families
should know, yes. We have tried to have a bit of a self-denying
ordinance about collecting too much information.
Q66 Mr Touhig: It is fairly basic,
though, to collect information about how many partnerships there
are and where they are based.
Sir David Normington: I agree
about that, and that is what we are going to do.
Q67 Mr Touhig: Who sets up the Safer
School Partnerships then?
Sir David Normington: It is largely
done at local level.
Q68 Mr Touhig: Local ... ?
Sir David Normington: By the school
and the local police.
Q69 Mr Touhig: Would it not be a
good idea to ask them to inform the Home Office when they set
up one of these partnerships? Is that too obvious? It is a Home
Office initiative, is it not, the Safer School Partnership?
Sir David Normington: It is a
joint initiative with the Department for Children, Schools and
Families.
Q70 Mr Touhig: And kind of a good
idea that you should know how many you have?
Sir David Normington: It may be
self-evident, but we have to be quite selective about when we
ask people to report into the Home Office, because we are trying
to cut back on that. However, I am accepting that we need to know
more about where the Safer School Partnerships are, yes.
Q71 Mr Touhig: Do you have any plans
afoot to discover how many partnerships exist?
Sir David Normington: Yes. As
a result of this report, we are sitting down with the DCSF and
counting them, and also trying to make sure that we know better
about the best practice.
Q72 Mr Touhig: You seem to have a
problem, I think, communicating across government too. The Chairman
made the point about figure 14, where 42% of partnerships never
use information collected by accident and emergency units. What
are you doing about that?
Sir David Normington: This is
about the willingness of local partnerships to share information.
There is a lot of good analysis going on in each of the individual
bits, but actually the partnership is not working unless that
is shared. We are working with the Department of Health to put
that right. We have good working with the Department of Health;
it is one of our strongest partners.
Q73 Mr Touhig: But it is pretty sensible
to do that.
Sir David Normington: It is essential
to do it and it is disappointing that we have not got further
with it; but that is a priority.
Q74 Mr Touhig: You have an action
plan, do you not, and you are not really sticking to that action
plan if you are not doing that?
Sir David Normington: That is
what we are doing and we are doing it area by area, and it is
underpinned by a statutory requirement to do that. However, people
hold on to their data, do they not? One of the things that has
happened with health-related data is the anxiety that somehow
it will breach rules of confidentiality. We have been working
with the Department of Health to show them that that is not so.
You can perfectly well share this data, depersonalised, and there
are no breaches of codes of practice or the Data Protection Act.
Q75 Mr Touhig: But it is sensible
to do that.
Sir David Normington: It is essential
to do it, yes.
Q76 Mr Touhig: My mother used to
say to me when I was growing up, "Son, in life you will find
that sense isn't that common"!
Sir David Normington: If it was,
everybody would already be doing it.
Q77 Mr Touhig: One of the other goals
of your action plan, the "six Hallmarks of Effective Partnerships",
figure 10, was "Effective and Responsive Delivery Structures".
Why is it that fewer than 30% of the partnerships responding to
the NAO survey had a violent crime strategy and only 43% had a
violent crime group?
Sir David Normington: Because
we had given partnerships the freedom to decide where their priorities
should be, you would see that, if we were talking about antisocial
behaviour, a substantial number of partnerships have groups and
strategies on antisocial behaviour and have given priority to
that rather than to violent crime. We are saying, as a result
of our latest programme on violent crime, we think that everybody
should be analysing their patterns on violent crime; because,
in a sense, as crime falls overall, this becomes a particular
priority and everybody should be doing that.
Q78 Mr Touhig: It would be a good
idea for them to have a violent crime strategy.
Sir David Normington: They should
have one, yes.
Q79 Mr Touhig: Some have. What are
you doing to spread that good practice throughout?
Sir David Normington: We are showing
them what a good strategy is, but also we are monitoring them
on whether they do, and we will be intervening if they do not.
| 
