Mr Taylor,

Thank you for drawing this to my attention. I was not aware that the protocol was not written down.

I have discussed this with the leader of the council and he agrees that it would be better for the protocol to be a written document, and for it to be included with the annual report to committee. He undertakes to progress this for future years, if we continue with the order.

It is precisely because this sort of protocol, no matter how well documented and published, may not be properly trained to the bobby on the beat, and also because it is unenforceable anyway, that we are just about prepared to tolerate a section 30 order but not prepared to countenance a DPPO. The section 30 order expires if we don’t renew it, whereas a DPPO is rather harder to get rid of in the case that the operation of a protocol were to break down for whatever reason.

The root of the problem is that central government do not trust councils to make bye-laws that meet their local circumstances. If we could get our bye-law approved we could give the police exactly the powers that we want them to have without, as we have to at the moment, having to also give them in the same package powers that we do not wish them to exercise.

Regards

Tim Ward

Alastair Roberts, Cambridge City Council’s Safer Communities Manager replied to say:

You have asked for copies of the protocols that were in place for the s.30 Dispersal Orders issued in 2007 and again in 2010. If by this you mean one document covering the roles of the Police and the City Council in respect of s. 30, such a document does not exist in the form you may be expecting.

It appears that some, informal, unwritten, agreement was in place; limiting the use of powers against children, but not as the council leader assured me limiting the use of the powers only to those involved in alcohol related anti-social behaviour.

At the time operational guidance was also agreed between the two organisations. This was done in consultation with Ward Councillors. Agreement was reached that the Order would, amongst other things, be explicit over the boundary of the area it covered, notices would be would be placed in various locations within the designated area and training would be provided to police personnel. Allowance within the area would be made for individuals to access essential services (relevant particularly to members of the street-life community), orders to leave would only cover the period of time when the officer issuing the order was on duty, young people involved in anti-social behaviour could be dispersed, however, subsection 6 of the Order which relates to returning those young people (under 16) found engaging in ASB and unaccompanied by an adult to their home, would not be used. Young persons found to be involved in persistent ASB would be referred to the ASB Problem Solving Group. The use of s.30 powers would be logged by the police and council officers would have access to the log.

While I left the meeting feeling reassured following the response to my public question; I now feel I was misled.

As I requested the protocol using mySociety’s freedom of information site WhatDoTheyKnow.com the request, and the response, have been published online at:
http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/dispersal_powers_protocols

“Friendly fire” was a good, clear, analogy I thought.

Yes you did. Original article: “This was something of a friendlily fire incident as Cllrs Nimmo-Smith and Taylor also hit their party colleague Simon Kightley who chairs the West Central Area committee”

My point was they didn’t consider that their criticisms of the Labour Chaired East Area committee could equally be applied to the Lib Dem West/Central Area committee chaired by Cllr Kightly. Had they done so, had Mr Kightley have been in their thoughts, then they might have been a bit more careful with their words.

I am absolutely certain that at least some Liberal Democrats attempted to turn their leader’s secret decision to renew the dispersal zone without any involvement of residents or ward councillors into an opportunity to make a party political attack against the Labour Party by suggesting that had Cllr Blencowe wanted he could have debated the zone at the East area committee.

I remember the cries and shouts from the Labour members - pointing out that Mr Blencowe can’t put things on his agenda if he’s not told about them - very clearly. The council leader clearly stated that Kevin Blencowe has full control over the East Area committee agenda; as this followed criticism of the failure to use the the area committees to engage with councillors and residents the suggestion being made certainly appeared to me to be that he was at fault for not ensuring the renewal and variation of the order was discussed.

Cllr Taylor’s article on the meeting is at:

http://amandataylor.mycouncillor.org/2010/01/20/concern-over-rushed-dispersal-order/

I did not suggest that dispersal zones should have been discussed at previous East Area Committees; I pointed out that if its chair Cllr Kevin Blencowe wished, he could have the general issue of ASB in the Mill Road area discussed at a future meeting, and that’s also what I said to him privately. I made no comment at all about any other Area Committee meetings, or about Cllr Kightley.

I have given a brief report on the discussion on my own website.

http://www.cambridge.gov.uk/public/councillors/agenda/2010/02%20February/0204areaw/00.pdf

If I get the chance I’ll attempt to follow up some of the next steps I listed above.