Consultation outcome

Consultation document (accessible)

Updated 14 November 2023

This was published under the 2022 to 2024 Sunak Conservative government

Applies to England and Wales

Relationship between Community Safety Partnerships and Police and Crime Commissioners, the role of Community Safety Partnerships and Police and Crime Commissioners in tackling anti-social behaviour and the expansion of anti-social behaviour powers

Government consultation

This consultation begins on 27 March 2023

This consultation ends on 22 May 2023

About this consultation

To:

This consultation is open to the public and targeted to those with experience working in, or with, Community Safety Partnerships , as well as those with interest in anti-social behaviour powers.

Duration:

From 27 March 2023 to 22 May 2023

Enquiries (including requests for the paper in an alternative format) to:

CSP Review Team
Home Office, Crime Strategy and Performance Unit
5th Floor, Fry Building
2 Marsham Street
London
SW1P 4DF

CSPReview@homeoffice.gov.uk

How to respond:

Responses can be submitted online through the GOV.UK website at https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/community-safety-partnerships-review-and-antisocial-behaviour-powers

Respondents who wish to provide a written response rather than complete the online version can email their response by 22 May 2023 to: CSPReview@homeoffice.gov.uk.

Both Welsh-translation and accessible versions are also available through the GOV.UK website.

Response paper:

Responses will be analysed and a ‘Response to Consultation’ document will be published.

Executive summary

1. This consultation contains questions on the relationship between Community Safety Partnerships (CSPs) and Police and Crime Commissioners (PCCs) and the role of CSPs and PCCs in tackling anti-social behaviour (ASB). It also considers ASB powers and whether any amendments to legislation are required.

Community Safety Partnerships Review

2. CSPs were introduced by Section 6 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998^{[footnote 1]} and bring together local partners to formulate and deliver strategies within their communities to tackle crime and disorder. Responsible authorities that make up a CSP are the Police, Fire and Rescue Authority, Local Authorities, Health Partners^{[footnote 2]} and Probation Services^{[footnote 3]}.

3. We know that effective partnership working is vital to reducing crime and disorder and ASB. As multi-agency partnerships, CSPs are an essential mechanism operating in local areas. No one organisation can address the range of underlying causes or drivers of crime and ASB. The organisations represented within a CSP, as well as those that they engage with in fulfilling their responsibilities, are responsible for many of the levers needed to address the drivers of crime and ASB. They can identify and understand the problems of their community and work together to find solutions.

4. In 2022, the Government published the findings from Part Two of its review of PCCs^{[footnote 4]}. The PCC Review found that, whilst the importance of local partnerships such as CSPs was widely acknowledged, they were not being used as effectively as they could be. The PCC Review recommended that the Home Office undertake a full review of CSPs across England and Wales to improve their transparency, accountability and effectiveness. The PCC Review made other recommendations relating to CSPs, including to examine the role of CSPs in relation to ASB and unpaid work.

5. The first part of the CSP Review is this targeted consultation, which focuses on the accountability of CSPs and the role of CSPs and PCCs in tackling ASB. As locally elected bodies, PCCs set police and crime objectives for their area. In this consultation, we are interested in exploring how greater focus can be brought to the delivery of those objectives, particularly by CSPs. In particular, the consultation focuses on three elements.

6. First, the consultation considers proposals to make changes to the current requirements of strategic assessments and partnership plans^{[footnote 5]}. Findings from public polling conducted by the Home Office show that crime and ASB are the community safety issues causing greatest concern to the public. Polling also shows that there is support among the public for being regularly updated and engaged on how community safety is being addressed in their local area. To reflect these concerns, this consultation considers options for CSPs to publish assessments and plans which they currently produce.

7. Second, and reflecting the important role CSPs play in supporting the delivery of PCCs’ police and crime objectives, it also considers whether PCCs should have greater access to assessments and plans published by CSPs to inform their own work. We believe this could improve PCCs’ understanding of crime and disorder and ASB issues in their area.

8. Third, and continuing the consideration of the role of CSPs in delivering PCC police and crime plan objectives, it also considers proposals to strengthen the accountability model of CSPs to align their work more closely to PCCs and deliver more effective outcomes for the public. This part of the consultation considers whether PCCs should review and make recommendations on CSPs’ activity. We believe this can ensure they work together effectively to cut crime and tackle community concerns.

9. The PCC Review also included recommendations to consider introducing a new duty for CSPs to report on local ASB strategy and delivery to PCCs and whether the Government should legislate to set out the role of PCCs regarding the ASB Case Review (formerly known as the Community Trigger). Examining how PCCs and CSPs work together to tackle ASB is important because, although PCCs consistently identify ASB as a priority, they can lack the levers required to drive the necessary partnership response to ASB.

10. PCCs currently have no formal oversight over the ASB Case Review, a process designed to support ASB victims who feel their case has not been heard by local agencies, giving them the right to request a multi-agency case review where a local threshold is met. We want to ensure that the co-operative working to tackle ASB between CSPs and PCCs is strengthened through considering how we could ensure PCCs can play a heightened role in tackling ASB locally and by setting out how PCCs can work with CSPs in the ASB Case Review process and improving its implementation. We are considering how to bolster how CSPs and PCCs currently work together to tackle ASB and exploring steps which both CSPs and PCCs can follow to build on their collaborative working. However, we are keen to assess stakeholders’ responses to test our thinking on these proposals and understand their perspective.

11. This consultation addresses opportunities to bolster PCCs’ powers to bring partners together on ASB; direct local ASB strategy; and request local data and reporting on ASB. In doing so the consultation explores options which could place PCCs in a stronger position to challenge local agencies, align local ASB strategies to their Police and Crime Plan and hold the CSP to account for delivering the best outcome for ASB victims.

ASB Powers

12. Through the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014, we provided the police, local authorities and other local agencies with a range of flexible tools and powers that they can use to respond quickly and effectively to ASB. We know that there is a general preference for use of non-enforcement tools and informal interventions at the first instance and powers provide a useful option where the ASB continues or requires a stronger response. CSPs play a vital role in exercising these powers. Local authorities, for example, can implement Public Spaces Protection Orders (PSPO) to stop individuals or groups committing ASB in a public space. The police can implement dispersal powers to nip ASB in the bud by requiring the perpetrators to leave an area for up to 48 hours. Both can put in place closure orders, to shut down premises which are being used to commit nuisance or disorder quickly.

13. Stakeholders tell us that the tools provided in the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 are the right ones for tackling ASB. We do not think that the 2014 Act provides sufficient powers to deal with nuisance begging and rough sleeping issues once the Vagrancy Act has been repealed. The focus should be on ensuring that powers given to the relevant agencies can be used more effectively and more consistently. However, amendments have been suggested to strengthen and broaden their use, such as expanding powers to other relevant agencies, or increasing timeframes that a power can be in place for. Therefore, we want to consult on these ideas as it is vital that local areas have everything they need at their disposal to ensure the nuisance and disorder does not escalate further. We also want to get a better understanding of how the Community Safety Accreditation Scheme (a voluntary scheme under which Chief Constables can choose to accredit employed people already working in roles that contribute to maintaining and improving community safety with limited but targeted powers) is used and whether any amendments to legislation are required to strengthen its use in tackling ASB.

Public Polling

1. In July 2022, the Home Office commissioned Ipsos UK to conduct public polling to understand better the views of the public surrounding community safety. The polling aimed to establish whether there is currently any engagement between the public and community safety organisations, how these organisations can best canvass the views of the public and inform them of their work, and whether the public feel that the individual community issues they face are reflected and addressed at both a national and local level. Research was conducted via an online survey using Ipsos UK’s KnowledgePanel, achieving a nationally representative sample of 2,014 adults aged 16 and above living in England and Wales. The invited sample was stratified by country, and minor weights were applied to the final data to ensure a nationally representative sample across England and Wales.

2. The findings from this public polling research have highlighted why the CSP Review is an important next step for this Government. There are correlations between feeling unsafe, feeling less satisfied with the local area, low confidence in how community safety issues are being dealt with and willingness to be engaged or kept updated on local responses to community safety. This highlights the importance of adopting a holistic approach to improve local communities’ feelings of safety and confidence that community safety issues are being dealt with effectively.

3. Research found that whilst the majority of the public feel safe in their local area, when prompted most expressed concern about crime and ASB, NHS/GP services and cost of living. Furthermore, ASB was the type of crime most likely to cause concern in the local area. To the public, community safety is mainly seen as related to crime and ASB, with limited reference to other issues. These results call attention to the need for an improved approach in addressing concerns related to crime and ASB.

4. Research also found low levels of confidence in how community safety issues are being dealt with at a local level and across England and Wales, indicating a need for better communication from agencies at both a local and regional level. The majority of the public think that the police or local council are responsible for dealing with community safety. Far fewer are aware of the role of other agencies, further highlighting the need for community safety organisations to improve communications with the public to raise awareness of their roles in addressing community safety issues. These approaches should be localised and tailored to reflect differences in local communities.

5. While few people are currently engaged with local community safety issues, there is appetite to be consulted at some level on how these issues are tackled locally. Additionally, the public are keen to be kept informed on how community safety issues are being dealt with locally, with the majority currently accessing information online. Approaches should be developed that effectively foster the willingness expressed by some to be actively inputting into how community safety issues are dealt with locally.

Proposals: Information sharing between CSPs and PCCs

Legislation and Regulations currently set out the requirements expected of CSPs and their strategy groups in England and Wales^{[footnote 6]}. These include:

• CSPs in England and Wales, apart from the devolved Welsh functions, must have due regard to the police and crime objectives set out in the Police and Crime Plan;

• in England and Wales, for each local government area there is required to be a strategy group;

• the strategy group shall consist of two or more persons appointed by one or more of the responsible authorities in the area;

• the strategy group is required to produce a strategic assessment annually on behalf of the responsible authorities;

• the strategy group is also required to produce a partnership plan and to publish a summary of this in the form it considers appropriate;

• the strategy groups in England must send a copy of the partnership plan to their PCC; and

• the PCC or the Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime, and bodies that are members of CSPs, must co-operate with each other in the exercise of their respective functions, except devolved Welsh functions.

Part 1 of this consultation requests opinions on changes that could be made to the Strategic Assessment and Partnership Plan. These changes include:

• whether there should be a new requirement for the Strategic Assessment to include detail of how the CSP has delivered its PCC’s Police and Crime Plan;

• whether strategy groups should send the Strategic Assessment to their PCC;

• whether strategy groups in Wales should send the Partnership Plan to the PCC;

• whether PCCs should demonstrate how they have had regard to the priorities of the responsible authorities making up the CSPs in the police area; and

• whether CSPs should publish their strategic assessment.

The changes that Part 1 of this document consults on are being considered in order to align the work of CSPs and PCCs more closely. We believe that the potential requirement for the Strategic Assessment to reference how the CSP has delivered its PCC’s Police and Crime Plan can strengthen the relationship between CSPs and PCCs through greater focus on the links between PCC’s priorities and CSP’s work to deliver them.

We consider that PCCs could benefit from receiving the Strategic Assessment by being able to access and review data at the local level. PCCs could understand more about how their priorities, as set out in the Police and Crime Plan, are delivered at a local level. Moreover, they could be made aware of potential issues relating to the delivery of those priorities and any other relevant aspects of community safety in their areas. Where PCCs are better informed and take this data into account, local and regional activity to tackle crime and disorder and ASB could better reflect the concerns of local communities.

Where CSPs publish their strategic assessment, this can increase the visibility of the CSP and their activity to the public. This could assist local communities to understand better the levels of crime and disorder in their area and the steps being taken to address them.

We would welcome responses to the following questions set out in this consultation paper.

Questionnaire: Part 1

1. Do you think that the strategic assessment should include detail of how the CSP has delivered its PCC’s Police and Crime Plan?

Yes / No / Don’t know

2. Do you think that the CSP strategy group should send a copy of its strategic assessment to its PCC?

Yes / No / Don’t Know

3. Do you think that CSPs should publish their strategic assessment and/or an executive summary of their strategic assessment?

Yes (full Strategic Assessment)/ Yes (executive summary of the Strategic Assessment) / Yes (full Strategic Assessment and an executive summary) No / Don’t Know

4. Do you think that CSP strategy groups in Wales should send a copy of their partnership plan to their PCC? If you do not operate in a Welsh context please select ‘Not applicable’

Yes / No / Don’t know / Not applicable

5. Do you think that PCCs should demonstrate how they have had regard to the priorities of the responsible authorities making up the CSPs in the police force area?

Yes / No / Don’t Know

6. In your view, what other steps could be taken to improve the way in which PCCs work with CSPs?

Open Text (250 word limit)

7. Do you have any information you would like to provide in support of your answers to the above questions?

Open Text (250 word limit)

Proposals: Accountability of CSPs

There are no current requirements of PCCs to review a CSP’s strategic assessment. Whereas part 1 of this consultation explores whether the strategic assessment should contain detail of how the CSP has had due regard to the Police and Crime Plan, part 2 focuses on whether PCCs should be able to review whether the activity undertaken by a CSP has contributed to the effective delivery of that Plan. The results of the public polling detailed above reveal that the public is concerned by crime and disorder and ASB but have low levels of confidence in the way in which those issues are dealt. This part of the consultation invites views on whether strengthening the accountability of CSPs to PCCs will improve the delivery of more effective outcomes for the public. As well as providing the PCC with an opportunity to explore in detail how their objectives are being delivered, giving PCCs the power to make recommendations on the activity of CSPs could provide CSPs with more clarity on strategic priorities which would enhance their delivery and activity.

We would welcome responses to the following questions set out in this consultation paper.

Questionnaire: Part 2

8. Do you think that PCCs should have a more active role regarding how they interact with CSPs to drive the delivery of the priorities in their Police and Crime Plans? Please provide any additional text to support your answer.

Yes / No / Don’t Know

Open Text (250 word limit)

9. Do you think that PCCs should have a power to review the CSP’s strategic assessment?

Yes / No / Don’t Know

10. Do you think that PCCs should have a power to make recommendations on the activity of CSPs to support the delivery of the objectives set out in the Police and Crime Plan and guide the activity of CSPs to ensure delivery of better outcomes for local communities?

Yes / No / Don’t Know

11. If you responded ‘Yes’ to Question 10, do you think that CSPs should be required to take those recommendations into account? If you responded ‘No’ or ‘Don’t know’ to Question 10 please select ‘Not applicable’

Yes / No / Don’t Know / Not applicable

12. Do you have any information you would like to provide in support of your answers to the above questions?

Open Text (250 word limit)

13. If there is any additional information that you believe should be taken into account, please provide details:

Open Text (250 words)

Proposals: CSP and PCC relationship in tackling anti-social behaviour

All PCCs now have tackling ASB as one of their priorities in their local Police and Crime Plans. However, there is currently a limited relationship between the local strategies developed by CSPs and these Police and Crime Plans. We consider that encouraging a joined-up approach between two vital local agencies would put PCCs in a stronger position to challenge local agencies, align local ASB strategies to their Police and Crime Plan and hold the CSP to account for delivering the best outcomes for ASB victims. Whilst PCCs must be consulted when the ASB Case Review process is set up and when it is reviewed, they have no formal oversight of the ASB Case Review. The implementation of the ASB Case Review varies from area to area, and it is apparent that, generally, PCCs are not involved in the ASB Case Review process set up by CSPs. The ASB Case Review is a crucial tool available to victims of ASB and by setting out the PCC role in its implementation, victims can expect an improved service when raising a formal case review.

We would welcome responses to the following questions set out in this consultation paper.

Questionnaire: Part 3

14. How (if at all) does your local PCC currently work with your CSP in implementing the ASB Case Review

Multiple choice:

Audits previous case reviews

Promotes awareness of the process

Attends case review meetings as an independent party

Convenes the relevant bodies to undertake the ASB Case Review

Provides a route for victims to query decisions made on the ASB Case Review

Provides guidance for the relevant bodies on the ASB Case Review process

Monitors use of the ASB Case Review to identify learning and best practice

PCC has no involvement with the ASB Case Review process

Don’t know

Other – please specify (open ended)

15. What added value (if any) do you believe your local PCC could bring to the ASB Case Review process?

Multiple choice:

Auditing previous case reviews

Promoting awareness of the process

Attending case review meetings as an independent party

Convening the relevant bodies to undertake the ASB Case Review

Providing a route for victims to query decisions made on the ASB Case Review

Providing guidance for the relevant bodies on the ASB Case Review process

Monitoring use of the ASB Case Review to identify learning and best practice

I don’t think PCCs should be involved in the ASB Case Review process

PCCs already do enough to support the ASB Case Review process

Don’t know

Other – please specify (open ended)

16. How (if at all) does your CSP currently engage with the PCC on ASB strategy and data?

Provides data on number of ASB incidents reported

Provides data on type of ASB incidents reported

Provides data on which agency or organisation incidents are reported to

Provides data on the number of times the ASB Case Review is requested

Provides data on the outcomes of ASB Case Reviews

Engages via consultations to inform ASB strategy

Provides progress updates on strategy implementation

Provides evaluations or results of strategy interventions

Provides data on where ASB incidents occur/hotspots

My CSP doesn’t currently engage with the PCC on ASB strategy and data

Don’t know

Other – please specify (open ended)

17. What ASB data and information on ASB strategy (if any) is available to be shared between CSPs and PCCs?

Data on number of ASB incidents reported

Data on the type of ASB incidents reported

Data on where incidents occur/ASB hotspots

Data on which agency or organisation incidents are reported to

Data on the number of times resolutions/powers are used

Data on the number of times the ASB Case Review is requested

Data on the outcomes of ASB Case Reviews

Progress updates on strategy implementation

Evaluations or results of strategy interventions

Nothing on data or strategy is available to be shared between CSPs and PCCs

Don’t know

Other – please specify (open ended)

Proposals: Anti-social behaviour powers

Tackling ASB requires a multi-agency approach and, through the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014, the relevant agencies all have a set of tools and powers to clamp down on ASB. These include PSPOs, dispersal powers and closure powers. Through the Police Reform Act 2002, the Community Accreditation Scheme creates a framework for public and private bodies to work in partnership with the police, providing additional uniformed presence in communities and capitalising on the skills and information captured by those already engaged with the community. While the police, local authorities and other agencies already have a range of powers to tackle ASB, they do not use them consistently, or, at times, enough. We are consulting on changes to the tools and powers to ensure a stronger response. We are aware that there are many tools and informal interventions that practitioners can use prior to implementing the powers available in the 2014 Act. We want to ensure that, if the ASB escalates after using informal interventions, the powers available are as effective as they can be. This can be achieved through reviewing and expanding the powers where necessary.

In his recent speech^{[footnote 7]}, the Prime Minister set out that tackling ASB and creating safer and stronger communities is a key priority of his over the next few months. Through the ASB Action Plan, we have committed to providing additional guidance and consulting on amending several of the ASB powers, to ensure they are being used effectively.

Drug Testing on Arrest (DToA) is a means to identify heroin, cocaine, and crack cocaine users from those arrested for a range of largely acquisitive crimes (such as theft or robbery). Following a positive drug test, the individual can be required to attend an initial drug assessment, and failure to attend may result in further charge. The initial offence the individual was arrested for will continue through the criminal justice system. DToA helps identify those whose drug use may be associated with their criminality. It therefore provides an opportunity to treat and reduce their drug use, and potentially reduce future offending, by helping them to change their behaviour. This will remain at the heart of our approach to DToA in the future.

As our focus is on tackling drug related anti-social behaviour and reducing drug demand, we must take any opportunity to reach individuals and provide the right interventions. It is therefore important to consider DToA alongside the other measures outlined in this consultation, to ensure the police have the necessary powers to tackle drug-related ASB and create safer and stronger communities.

We would welcome responses to the following questions set out in this consultation paper.

Questionnaire: Part 4

Dispersal powers

18. Dispersal Powers are currently only available to police to issue. Should this power be extended to local authorities?

Yes

No

Don’t know

19. Dispersal Powers can currently only be issued for up to 48 hours. Should this power be extended for up to 72 hours?

Yes

No

Don’t know

20. Do you have any information you would like to provide in support of your answers to the above questions about dispersal powers?

Open Text (250 words)

Drug testing powers

21. Police currently have the power to require arrested individuals to undergo a drug test when in custody. Do you think these powers should be extended to allow police to test outside of the custody suite, such as in public places?

Yes

No

Don’t know

22. Do you have any information you would like to provide in support of your answer to the above question about drug testing powers?

Open Text (250 words)

Public Spaces Protection Orders and Community Protection Notices

23. Public Spaces Protection Orders can currently only be issued by local authorities. Should this power be extended to police?

Yes

No

Don’t know

24. Local authorities can currently issue a Public Spaces Protection Order (PSPO) after consultation with the police, PCC, the owner or occupier of land in the restricted area and other community representatives they see fit. If PSPOs are extended to the police should the consultation requirements remain the same? If you answered ‘No’ or ‘Don’t know’ to the question above, please select ‘Not applicable’

Yes

No

Don’t know

Not applicable

25. Community Protection Notices can currently be issued to any person aged 16 and over, whereas other powers such as the Civil Injunction and the Criminal Behaviour Order can be used with younger perpetrators. Should the age limit be lowered for Community Protection Notices?

Yes

No

Don’t know

26. If the age limit is lowered for the Community Protection Notice, to what age should it be lowered? If you answered ‘No’ or ‘Don’t know’ to the question above please select ‘Not applicable’

10

11

12

13

14

15

Don’t know

Not applicable

27. The upper limit for a Fixed Penalty Notice for breaches of Community Protection Notices and Public Spaces Protection Orders is currently £100. Should the upper limit be increased to £500?

Yes

No

Don’t know

28. Do you have any information you would like to provide in support of your answers to the above questions about public space protection orders and community protection notices?

Open Text (250 words)

Closure powers

29. Closure Orders can currently only be applied for no later than 48 hours after service of a Closure Notice through the courts. Should this timeframe be extended to 72 hours?

Yes

No

Don’t know

30. Closure Notices and Closure Orders can currently only be applied for by police and local authorities. Should this power be extended to registered housing providers?

Yes

No

Don’t know

31. Do you have any information you would like to provide in support of your answers to the above questions about closure powers?

Open Text (250 words)

Civil Injunctions

32. There is currently no power of arrest available, without the use or threat of violence or significant risk of harm, when enforcing a Civil Injunction. Should the power of arrest be extended to all breaches of a Civil Injunction?

Yes

No

Don’t know

33. Do you have any information you would like to provide in support of your answer to the above question about civil injunctions?

Open Text (250 words)

Community Safety Accreditation Scheme

34. The Community Safety Accreditation Scheme allows Chief Constables to accredit employed people in roles that contribute to maintaining and improving community safety with limited but targeted powers. Should this range of powers be extended to include relevant powers in the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014?

Yes

No

Don’t know

35. Which tools and powers do you think should be included from the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014?

Dispersal Powers

Public Spaces Protection Orders

Community Protection Notices

Closure Powers

Civil Injunctions

Criminal Behaviour Orders

Don’t know

No further tools and powers should be included

36. Do you have any information you would like to provide in support of your answers to the above questions about the community safety accreditation scheme?

Open Text (250 words)

About you

Please use this section to tell us about yourself

Job title or capacity in which you are responding to this consultation exercise (for example, member of the public)

PCC or Office of the PCC

National Police Chiefs’ Council member

Police representative

District CSP – on behalf of the whole CSP

County CSP – on behalf of the whole CSP

Borough CSP – on behalf of the whole CSP

Unitary CSP – on behalf of the whole CSP

District CSP – individual member (please specify the responsible authority you represent)

County CSP – individual member (please specify the responsible authority you represent)

Borough CSP – individual member (please specify the responsible authority you represent)

Unitary CSP – individual member (please specify the responsible authority you represent)

Representative of national organisation

Local Authority member

Housing Provider member

Member of the public

Other (please specify)

Date

Company/organisation name (if applicable)

Geographic area your work is located

England and Wales

England only

Wales only

If you would like us to acknowledge receipt of your response, please tick this box

(please tick box)

Address to which the acknowledgement should be sent, if different from above

If you are a representative of a group, please tell us the name of the group and give a summary of the people or organisations that you represent.

Contact details and how to respond

Please complete the consultation online or send your response by 22 May 2023 to:

CSP Review Team
Home Office, Crime Strategy and Performance Unit
5th Floor, Fry Building
2 Marsham Street
London
SW1P 4DF

CSPReview@homeoffice.gov.uk

Complaints or comments

If you have any complaints or comments about the consultation process, you should contact the Home Office at the above address.

Extra copies

Alternative format versions of this publication can be found on https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/community-safety-partnerships-review-and-antisocial-behaviour-powers or by contacting the Home Office at the above address.

Representative groups

Representative groups are asked to give a summary of the people and organisations they represent when they respond.

Confidentiality

Information provided in response to this consultation, including personal information, may be published or disclosed in accordance with the access to information regimes (these are primarily the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA), the Data Protection Act 2018 (DPA), the General Data Protection Regulation (UK GDPR) and the Environmental Information Regulations 2004).

If you want the information that you provide to be treated as confidential, please be aware that, under the FOIA, there is a statutory Code of Practice with which public authorities must comply and which deals, amongst other things, with obligations of confidence. In view of this, it would be helpful if you could explain to us why you regard the information you have provided as confidential. If we receive a request for disclosure of the information, we will take full account of your explanation, but we cannot give an assurance that confidentiality can be maintained in all circumstances. An automatic confidentiality disclaimer generated by your IT system will not, of itself, be regarded as binding on the Home Office.

The Home Office will process your personal data in accordance with the DPA and, in the majority of circumstances, this will mean that your personal data will not be disclosed to third parties.

Consultation principles

The principles that government departments and other public bodies should adopt for engaging stakeholders when developing policy and legislation are set out in the consultation principles.

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/consultation-principles-guidance

© Crown copyright 2023

This publication is licensed under the terms of the Open Government Licence v3.0 except where otherwise stated. To view this licence, visit nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence/version/3

Where we have identified any third party copyright information you will need to obtain permission from the copyright holders concerned.

This publication is available at https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/community-safety-partnerships-review-and-antisocial-behaviour-powers

Any enquiries regarding this publication should be sent to us at:

CSP Review Team
Home Office, Crime Strategy and Performance Unit
5th Floor, Fry Building
2 Marsham Street
London
SW1P 4DF

CSPReview@homeoffice.gov.uk

1. Crime and Disorder Act 1998 (legislation.gov.uk) ↩

2. Health Partners refers to Integrated Care Boards in England and Health Boards in Wales. ↩

3. Probation Services is used instead of Probation Providers. ↩

4. For simplicity, the term PCC refers to the 39 Police and Crime Commissioners (PCC), the four Police, Fire and Crime Commissioners (PFCC), and the three Mayors exercising PCC functions. ↩

5. Strategic Assessment means an assessment prepared in accordance with regulations 5, 6 and 7 of the Crime and Disorder (Formulation and Implementation of Strategy) Regulations 2007 England and Wales. Partnership plan means a partnership plan prepared under regulations 10 and 11 of the Crime and Disorder (Formulation and Implementation of Strategy) Regulations 2007 England and under regulations 8 and 9 of the corresponding Regulations in Wales. ↩

6. Strategy group means a group established in accordance with regulation 3 of the Crime and Disorder (Formulation and Implementation of Strategy) Regulations 2007 England and Wales. ↩

7. PM speech on building a better future: 4 January 2023 - GOV.UK (www.gov.uk) ↩