Members present:

Rev Dr William McCrea (Chairperson)
Ms Lewsley (Deputy Chairperson)
Mr Armstrong
Mr McClarty
Mr Poots
Mr Watson

Witnesses:

Mr D Barr ) Department of the Environment
Mr J McConnell )
Ms H Cousins ) Northern Ireland Office
Mr M McGuckin )

The Chairperson: I welcome Mr Mark McGuckin and Ms Heather Cousins from the Northern Ireland Office (NIO) and Mr David Barr and Mr John McConnell from the Department of the Environment to this meeting.

Mr McGuckin: I am Mark McGuckin, head of the Criminal Justice Services Division of the NIO. My colleague, Heather Cousins, is head of the policy branch of the Community Safety Unit. I thank you for inviting us to discuss the draft community safety strategy, which was published on 10 April and has a consultation period running until 3 July. We propose to give a short presentation on the strategy, which should help to set the context, after which we shall attempt to address any specific questions. I understand that you are considering clauses in the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill, and you will appreciate that, while we can address questions about the community safety strategy, we are not in a position to answer any questions on the Bill.

Ms Cousins: Thank you for the invitation to discuss the strategy with you today. We are trying to consult as widely as possible and are grateful for this opportunity. I have tried to shorten the presentation which we gave when we launched the strategy to fit your timescale, and I have brought copies of slides which are slightly different to those you had.

I shall start with the definition of community safety that we are using in the strategy document and point out certain key aspects. Community safety is a much wider subject than crime reduction, and we are examining the prevention, reduction and containment of social, environmental, and intimidatory factors that affect the right to live without fear of crime, and which have an impact on quality of life. We see this as a much wider subject than crime reduction — it is a quality-of-life subject and must be linked with other such strategies.

We have put together a simple picture of an unsafe community to illustrate the fact that the issue is much wider than merely crime reduction. When you ask members of communities about safety concerns, crime is one of the last things they mention. Fortunately, most people live without experiencing it directly; the things that concern them are lower down the iceberg. The symptoms are truancy, vandalism, difficulties with noisy neighbours, drug and alcohol abuse, graffiti, and so on. This has been borne out by some of the work we have done with the Creating Common Ground Consortium, which has surveyed over 40 communities, particularly in Housing Executive estates. They came up with the same issues, and would like to have them tackled under the heading of community safety.

We have consulted extensively, examining crime statistics and conducting research. From that we have come up with nine key issues in the strategy. We have tried to have every issue come in under one of the headings. Some are quite broad, such as "fear of crime among older people, victims and children". Our intention is that it will consider wider safety aspects in relation to older people, victims, and children, as well as crime-related issues. We are also examining youth offending and reducing criminality through diversion and education programmes. The last one is "street violence, low-level neighbourhood disorder, and antisocial behaviour", which is intended to deal with those other issues not specifically crime-focused. Those are our nine issues, which arise from the extensive research we have conducted.

We see community safety as being about local problems. It is about people getting together with service-delivery agencies locally to tackle those problems and develop solutions appropriate to their situations. It must be bottom-up and joined-up — not top-down — and the partnerships need to find ways of involving the community directly. As it is about local problems, the strategy is not prescriptive about how this should work. We anticipate different areas structuring partnerships in different ways and are content with that. It should reflect local circumstances.

With regard to the types of agencies that would be involved in tackling such issues, it is not the job of the police alone to deal with antisocial behaviour. Other agencies will be involved and must think about what services they can offer to support each other in their attempt to tackle the problem of antisocial behaviour. We are considering such groups as the mediation services. Facilities are required for young people so that they are not seen to be hanging around causing a nuisance. Education authorities and local councils can be involved in such provision.

We hope to reduce substantially the fear of crime by working in partnership and giving the problem a higher profile. Improved street lighting has been shown to reduce such fear. A project in an estate in Ballymena has been shown to reduce older people’s anxieties. We are also considering the installation of home security systems, particularly for elderly and vulnerable people. A partnership approach can achieve more than individual organisations working in isolation.

In considering structures for partnerships, we established criteria for successful community safety partnerships. We required that the membership and structure of the partnerships allow them to commit resources to partnership working, but that they should also be able to deliver actions. We are not interested in a partnership that will sit around the table and talk. We want one that can do things — with an action plan and people signed up to deliver that programme. It should also be accountable to local people for creating safer communities.

It is vital that community safety be a mainstream activity rather than an aim pursued on the side if there are spare resources. In that way, organisations will come to consider the community safety aspects of any policy that they deliver. It is also important to link that with other strategies related to quality of life. In particular, we are thinking about the strategies on neighbourhood renewal, investing for health and the link to the local policing plan.

We also want a structure that can provide matching funding. We have secured resources for community safety, but we expect other organisations to contribute. Several organisations should be able to move towards achieving their objectives through participation in the programme, so they should also be prepared to provide funding.

Those are the factors we were looking for when we considered models for structures. We decided that we could not be prescriptive, as the partnerships must fit local circumstances. All we have said in the strategy, therefore, is that the partnerships should be based on district council areas. In that way, they will be conterminous with police boundaries.

Our two key concerns are that the partnerships be able to commit resources and deliver services. Community safety should be mainstreamed and become part of the strategic plan for the district. We have not stated that there should be a lead partner. A partnership will decide how it will work when it is formed; it may differ depending on the area.

This slide shows voluntary partnerships already up and running. In Antrim, the community safety partnership is chaired by the Northern Ireland Housing Executive. Before that, it was chaired by the district council — the partners take turns. Lisburn has taken a different approach by setting up a charitable company. One reason for doing this is to be able to get access to funding through charitable trusts. All the partner organisations will be directors of the charitable company. That model is working successfully.

The community safety unit has experience of setting up such partnerships and co-operating with organisations, and we are available to do that anywhere in Northern Ireland.

All partners should be equal. There should be collective ownership of the problems and solutions. One partner should not tell everyone else what to do. You will not achieve success without collective ownership. The service-level agreements should formalise the arrangements, so that the partners can agree on their contributions.

The NIO has not asked the district councils to lead the community safety partnerships. It is inviting them to co-ordinate them. It will provide dedicated resources to the partnership for co-ordination. The councils’ participation is voluntary, but the NIO is confident that they will see the benefits of working in partnership. Lack of safety in a community will have an impact on all initiatives in the area, such as economic development and health improvement. Engagement in a community safety partnership is therefore to everyone’s benefit.

The NIO expects the partnerships to perform several key functions. The vital element in the partnership is its operation. An audit will be conducted to determine the problems through analysis of the information available to all the partner organisations. That will result in the development of an action plan that will set out what they intend to do to tackle the problems. The plan will be monitored, and its results will be reported back to the appropriate strategic group. Individual task groups will implement the planned action either in a specific part of a district, or, when dealing with an issue such as domestic violence, across the whole district. The task groups will report their progress to the operational group.

This is a real opportunity to make a difference. The success of the strategy will be judged by the difference that people say it makes to their lives when they are asked about community safety.

The NIO is interested in maximising the benefit from collective contributions. By pooling resources and working together, we shall achieve more than can be done by individual organisations working in silos. However, that depends on co-operation at many levels. A lack of co-operation will have an impact on the scheme. Joined-up thinking and action are needed, as is investment, and the NIO has secured £2·5 million per annum to start the ball rolling.

It is not a short-term initiative, and that is one of the reasons why the strategy will cover a five-year period. The NIO anticipates that, while there will be achievements in the short term to encourage people, the scheme will take time. It will try to tackle the causes of crime, and that cannot be done quickly.

The Chairperson: You placed emphasis on co-operation and the involvement of each partner. The Community Safety Unit will facilitate the formation of partnerships. However, while we are getting some definitions, clause 7, subsection (2) of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill states:

The Chairperson: The question may be difficult, but you have not answered it, and someone must do so. The emphasis of Ms Cousins’s presentation was the voluntary partnership and the various groupings working together. However, the legislation says:

The primary intention is to ensure that the Assembly can make the condition that councils must become involved in community safety issues if it finds that necessary at some future date.

The Chairperson: Would that not be the appropriate time to insert it? It goes against everything said this morning.

Mr McConnell: The Department has no ulterior motive in its inclusion. It is there to anticipate any future decision of the Assembly.

The Chairperson: If reorganisation of local government took place, and that involved the shifting of power, surely that would involve new legislation. Would that not be the appropriate time to change the legislation?

Mr McConnell: It is there because we wish to allow the Assembly as much latitude as possible, should it later decide that councils should have that responsibility. Councils already have other responsibilities imposed on them, and the Assembly may decide that it is also something that the Department should require.

Mr Barr: It is essentially an enabling power built into primary legislation. It would enable the Assembly to pass subordinate legislation requiring councils and other bodies to engage in compulsory, rather than voluntary, community safety if the voluntary scheme were not working successfully. That would happen only after full consultation with district councils, other relevant bodies, Departments, this Committee and other Assembly institutions.

The Chairperson: Who would make the judgement that it was not working?

Mr McConnell: The phrase "not working" was perhaps unfortunate. If it were considered important and turned out to be as successful and worthwhile as the NIO says — and I have no reason to doubt that — the Assembly might decide that such an important issue is not a matter of choice. People automatically turn to the council when an emergency happens in the district. I cannot conceive of any circumstances where councillors are not first in line for criticism. It is a method of ensuring that, if it were such an important matter, the Assembly could impose the duty.

Ms Lewsley: I welcome that move. It is bottom-up and joined-up for a change.

I have reservations about the funding to be given and the longer-term accountability, monitoring and evaluation. Could you explain how that would happen?

As a Lisburn Borough councillor, I wish to ask about the project in Lisburn; is that the one in the Glasvey area?

Ms Cousins: There is a community safety partnership, which is not currently working on specific projects. That is perhaps the Creating Common Ground Consortium. The project in Glasvey has a community safety aspect, which is concerned with lighting and so on. We have a member of staff working on that project.

Ms Lewsley: Is that the one which you mentioned when you spoke about Lisburn — where the charitable status was set up?

Ms Cousins: Lisburn community safety partnership has received charitable status. It is currently developing its action plans, having completed community consultations. It has not yet started any projects.

Ms Lewsley: Who is part of that community safety partnership?

Ms Cousins: The council, police, health trust and most of the statutory agencies.

The Chairperson: Who chooses the great and the good?

Ms Cousins: They choose themselves. Initially we write to the interested organisations and invite them to a local meeting to discuss forming a partnership. At the meeting they decide themselves who should be in the partnership.

Ms Lewsley: There is another group connected with Lisburn Borough Council called the "adults at risk" group. It has a multi-agency approach and is seeking funding for a co-ordinator. Will that funding be jeopardised because there is already another project, the two being unaware of each other?

Ms Cousins: I cannot comment on the other project, but the mayor currently chairs the community safety partnership in Lisburn. I should therefore hope that those involved would be aware of what was happening.

Ms Lewsley: I am a councillor, and I was not aware of that. I am on the other group, where there is a multi- agency approach. Any agency going into the homes of elderly people or vulnerable adults must go through a checklist to ensure their safety. The group is looking for a co-ordinator so that we can identify and prove the need. We have worked with the local schools; we have such things as safety chains. I do not know whether it is aware of the other group. There must be better communication and co-ordination throughout.

I also wish to enquire about the monitoring and evaluation of moneys that will go into projects.

Ms Cousins: The funding will go to the partnership. It will be given based on the partnership’s action plans. We should like to see evidence in those action plans that the projects are based on an analysis of problems and so on. We want to see that the audit has been completed.

Mr McGuckin: The resources that have been made available to support the development and implementation of the strategy will not be sufficient to meet all the needs. That is not the intention; the intention is to support high-quality projects — to provide seed funding and get projects started. If the partnership is set up effectively, we should also anticipate that — and this relates back to the Chairperson’s question about who selects those people — the partnership will be made up largely of service-delivery organisations. They will have responsibilities for delivering certain aspects.

In the most effective partnerships, those individual organisations’ objectives will be mirrored in the community safety strategy and the community safety action plan. By contributing to the action plan, they achieve their own objectives. They can therefore target the resources they already have at specific issues identified as being of concern to the local community.

Mr McClarty: I too am concerned about the imposition of responsibilities on councils. Responsibilities are imposed by central Government, and, more particularly, many are imposed by Europe. Councils have to find the money to carry out those responsibilities. I agree with the concept of community safety, and my council has taken advantage of that. It has installed security cameras in town centres, and there has been a significant reduction in crime centrally.

We were recently given a demonstration on the effectiveness of the cameras, and we saw some footage of undesirables creating mayhem in the town centre. Cameras are tremendous for ensuring a community’s safety, and they are relatively inexpensive to install. Monitoring is the real expense and a recurring cost. Can you foresee grants towards those costs continuing for the foreseeable future?

Mr McConnell: I cannot comment about the grants or the imposition of responsibility. I do not want to repeat what I have said to the Chairperson, but if a council is being made to spend money, it is easier to justify the expenditure than if it were voluntary. That is not the purpose here. If it is so important and proves to be successful, the Assembly may, at some point, decide that councils should be responsible for it as they are for other matters such as bin collection. That is the only purpose, and there is no ulterior motive. If the Committee wishes, we can go back to the Minister and say that the Committee does not want it. There is no ulterior motive — it is simply a way of allowing the Assembly a measure of control, should that be necessary.

Mr McGuckin: The CCTV schemes were established as a result of a competition run by the former Police Authority. The grants were purely to cover the set-up costs. It was expected that a partnership would develop in each area, and that that would ensure that they were maintained.

Mr McConnell: Some councils are concerned that money they have spent on CCTVs does not have the necessary legislative cover. Councils can spend up to 5p in the pound on anything they like under section 115 of the Local Government Act 1972. All councils have that money well accounted for. Councils are seeking legislative cover for things such as CCTVs.

Mr Barr: Councils have, through the Society of Local Authority Chief Executives (SOLACE), requested statutory cover to enable them to spend money from the rates on community safety if they so wish. The amount of money that they spend will be a local decision taken in council chambers and will depend on the other priorities and expenditure demands that they have. Each council will still have the power to spend what it wants on community safety.

Mr Poots: I am glad that the NIO is here today, because I am very sceptical about the whole idea. While it is fine for a community to get involved and give support to initiatives, the fact is that NIO is responsible for justice and policing. More visible policing is not possible when more police officers are leaving the service than joining it. That is an ongoing problem. Over the past two years there have been significant problems because there are not enough police officers.

The judiciary is worse: people commit crimes, and the police apprehend them, but they are let off with community service and a slap on the wrist. If the police and the judiciary cannot deliver, it is a joke to expect the community to assist. Nothing good will come of this. Communities will just get more work and more hassle but will see no significant benefits unless the judiciary gets its act together and NIO ensures that there are sufficient police.

The criminal justice review, which was the most comprehensive review of the criminal justice system here, identified several new initiatives that are the subject of legislation in Westminster. The youth conferencing process is aimed at providing young people who are engaged in crime with more effective responses, and the Community Responsibility Order and Reparation Order will, I hope, improve overall effectiveness. Those initiatives are designed to get the most effective response from individuals and to have them address the nature of their offences. They are also designed for earlier intervention with more effective disposal.

Although the community safety strategy contributes to that, as Ms Cousins said, it goes further by tackling the causes of the offences. This is about intervening before people commit crime. The community can become involved in mediation services, facilities for young people, improved lighting and other environmental factors. It can say where the needs are and, therefore, influence how statutory agencies respond.

Ms Cousins: We do not expect the community to deliver this alone. It can be involved in identifying the problems and solutions and can work with the statutory agencies that deliver those solutions.

Mr Poots: Our council has already written to the judiciary, with very little response. The judiciary has refused to meet the local authority and wants to keep a hands-off approach as far as talking to public representatives about dealing with criminals is concerned.

You mentioned the causes of crime. Someone who has committed 30 or 40 offences gets a slap on the wrist and is told not to do it again. Some young people have appeared before Lisburn Courthouse on car crime offences and have walked out of the court and stolen a car in which to get home. The community wants a safe environment, and I have no doubt that it will assist in providing it. However, with the best will in the world, there is no point in NIO using the strategy to create a safe environment without putting other, more important, systems in place to achieve it. That point is slightly political and perhaps difficult for you to answer.

The strategy will be meaningless without proper policing. You said that policing is a matter for the Chief Constable — it is not. It is for NIO to give sufficient funds to the Chief Constable. There is a projected £43 million of underfunding in the policing budget for this year, so it is for NIO to get more from the Treasury. This is also a matter for the judiciary, under the direction of NIO.

Mr McGuckin: The community safety strategy cannot stand alone. Mr Poots is entirely right: it is one part of a wider process that, as I mentioned earlier, involves improvements that we are attempting to make in disposals for the young, and that may start to address the car crime scenario.

Mr Armstrong: We may be starting at the wrong place. It is all well and good to have ideas about how to get rid of crime or alleviate it, but the main problem is that funding is not there. We should start with the youth when they are young children and not wait until they are young adults to push money into a scheme when the problem could have been solved at primary school. Education is the way. Young people should be educated about this when they are 10 or 11. That is what you should be looking at. Money will be put into this, and you will expect people, including the police and councillors, to implement it when they have no real authority to so do.

You mentioned improved lighting. Although much crime happens at night, much also happens in broad daylight, when lighting is not needed. Cameras are an obvious deterrent, but we need to educate people from the start. That should have been your starting point.

Mr McGuckin: Education authorities must work effectively with other agencies to identify and address the problems with young people’s behaviour, as they do with other areas of the curriculum.

Mr Armstrong: They must do that before young people become absorbed in an unnatural way of life, not afterwards.

Mr McConnell: A councillor who was keen to get involved in community safety projects told me that they were not just an opportunity to deal with the superficial problems that have been mentioned, but a means of encouraging and engaging other partners — all of whom can have a role. I am not an expert on that, like the NIO, but that point was made to me.

Mr Armstrong: I appreciate what you have done, but you must reconsider the matter and take it in hand.

The Chairperson: Rebellion in the heart of man is not unnatural. It is the most natural way of life and must be curbed by a greater power — I am speaking with my other hat on. Rebellion must be broken.

Mr McClarty: That is the shortest sermon that the Chairman has preached in a long time.

The Chairperson: I trust that my point has been made.

I want to make two other important points. Your answer to Mr Poots on the Chief Constable’s operational responsibilities was inadequate. Bricks cannot be made out of straw. The Chief Constable does not have enough officers to fulfil his operational responsibilities, and that is NIO’s responsibility, so it cannot wash its hands of it. Lack of funding is one thing, but what has happened to the police, and the numbers that are leaving, has left us devoid of persons for the Chief Constable to operate with.

The second matter is of equal importance and concern. Funding was £2·5 million in 2002-03, £2·5 million in 2003-04 and will be subject to a successful bid for £2·5 million in 2004-05. There is 100% funding for the next few years to get the councils sucked in. It will then be dropped to 75%, and the councils will be expected to fund the remainder.

The Chairperson: No. I am sorry. Let me read the words to you — and I did not write them:

The Chairperson: I put on my glasses and took them off to ensure that I was reading correctly.

Mr Barr: May I ask the date of that communication?

The Chairperson: It was dated 8 March and came from the Minister’s office — it is not possible to go higher.

Mr Barr: We were not fully aware then of the funding arrangements for community safety. We were trying to take that clause through the Justice Bill. Time was limited, and a quick submission had to be made. We were not able to discuss the details with NIO, and the communiqué is perhaps not fully accurate, given that we now have further information from NIO. Councils must address the funding of community safety partnerships with the other partners and NIO.

Currently, councils can decide whether they wish to participate in community safety partnerships. After consultation with NIO, SOLACE said that they wished to be part of it and that they wanted powers to contribute financially. The amount of the contribution would be for them to decide, bearing in mind their priorities and the other claims on their resources.

The Chairperson: I have heard no objection to the principle from around the table, but we want to ensure that councils faced with problem after problem are not left with a financial burden. Mr Brown made the wonderful announcement that we may have three times the rates to pay for everything, a lovely message from the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Now we are being told that there will be a further burden on the rates. That is no reassurance. You say that you have changed paragraph 6; however, I wish to see it in writing — moreover, in bold writing.

Mr McGuckin: The draft community safety strategy was published for consultation on 10 April, and I draw your attention to chapter 5, page 39, which deals with funding. At that stage the proposal was to provide financial support for the employment of a co-ordinator over three years in the manner suggested — 100%, 100% and 75%. Paragraph 5.7 makes it clear that a full evaluation of the co-ordinator role will be conducted in year 3 to inform further funding arrangements. That is the position in the draft strategy, which is at consultation. My point is that funding for the third year might increase to 100% to allow that evaluation to take place.

Secondly, the co-ordinator is a resource for all the organisations in the partnership. To be effective, such a partnership needs a co-ordinator. I assume, if the costs were not met centrally, that they would be met by the partnership rather than by any of its component parts.

Mr McClarty: Community safety is an emotive issue. Councils will be compelled to do this, so it will not be voluntary. Most agencies in the partnership have finite budgets, and if they have to contribute to this, the money will have to come from something else, so funding is a big problem.

The Chairperson: This is a vital matter. Mr McClarty made the point earlier about CCTV. I know from personal experience that two towns committed money to that and then found that the operation was left to the area — that is fact. They got into partnership with the business community, and the business community participated in the debate. However, to the best of my knowledge, it bore only a small part of the financing, and the group left holding the baby was the council.

The paragraph mentioned can mean many things, but it is really saying that 25% is not promised from NIO, so there will be a burden on the councils, and the question is: where will they get the money? They are willing to take the challenge if no one else is, but they have to have money to do the job and they need a lead. In my years in public service, a number of other important responsibilities were given to councils, often with introductory grants of 75% for two years and then nothing — since nobody else wanted the responsibilities, the councils had to finance them. However, councils can only finance anything from the rates, so we must have this clarified — if only because we are dealing with a letter which is now out of date.

Mr McConnell: The update on the letter will simply be to include "and others". We just want to give an enabling power to councils, but we have no control over funding at all.

Mr McGuckin: The strategy is currently in draft format and has been published for consultation. These are the proposals that we are making, and I will take on board the Committee’s comments. As an initial step, I will certainly be suggesting that NIO funds the third year to 100%.

On Ms Lewsley’s earlier point on this element of funding, this will be significant and will take up 30% of the budgets being set aside for it. It will be incumbent on us to evaluate how effective the use of the money is and see whether we should continue to take that approach.

The Chairperson: This is as far as we can go this morning, but you do sense our concerns. The principle is good, and SOLACE is not turning away from it. We have a public duty to point out any problems, and we ask you to consider them and give us direct answers. Thank you very much.