Clause
109
Individual
support
orders
Question
proposed, That the clause stand part of the
Bill.
Mr.
Heath:
I rise to draw attention to the reservations
expressed by the Standing Committee for Youth Justice about the clause.
It is concerned that individual support orders have not proved a great
success. The clause would allow ISOs to be made more than once, not
only simultaneously with an ASBO, and to be attached
to
ASBOs that are obtained on conviction or in the county court, whereas at
present they are available only in civil proceedings in the magistrates
courts.
The
committee says that only a limited number of ISOs have been used and
suggests that the low take-up rate reflects a lack of knowledge about
ISOs among sentencers and youth offending team duty officers. It also
suggests that, in cases when a young person had contact with the youth
offending team through an existing court order, there was a general
assumption that an ISO was unnecessary because it would add nothing to
services that were already in
place.
The
committee put it to me that the Government’s proposals might
increase the number of ISOs to an extent, but that they would not deal
either of those issues and would reinforce the current perception that
support for vulnerable young people subject to ISOs should be provided
through the youth justice system, and youth offending teams in
particular. It argues that it is a matter for other support services
and that the requirements within ISOs could make matters
worse—not better—because there could be breach
proceedings if the requirements of the ISO were not carried out by the
young person. The committee believes that the support services should
be available, irrespective of the behaviour of the young person, as a
necessary part of rehabilitation. I welcome any comments that the
Minister might have about my
remarks.
Mr.
Coaker:
In some respects, I agree with the hon. Gentleman.
He is right to say that individual support orders are not used to the
extent that we would hope. Part of the intention behind the clause is
to increase the number of ISOs that are issued. There is a lack of
knowledge. That is a fair point. It is something that we have addressed
through the Home Office, but it will now also be dealt with through
other Departments, including the Ministry of Justice. The whole point
of individual support orders is to deal with some of the criticisms
that have been made and ensure that young people subject to antisocial
behaviour orders are given the support that they need to help them
address their antisocial behaviour. The individual support orders try
to achieve some of the things that he and other members of the
Committee have argued, throughout today, are necessary if we are to
divert young people away from antisocial behaviour and criminal
activity. The clause extends the use of individual support orders and
makes them available for antisocial behaviour orders, on
conviction.
The
argument for individual support orders is one of resources and of
agencies working together, but we need to ensure that more of them are
used, because they are often very successful and it is a source of
regret that they are not used in more
cases.
Question
put and agreed to.
Clause
109
ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause
s
110
and 111
ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Schedule
19
Police
misconduct and performance
procedures
Mr.
Coaker:
I beg to move amendment No. 227, in
schedule 19, page 203, line 31, leave
out ‘counsel or a solicitor’ and insert ‘a
relevant lawyer’.
The
Chairman:
With this it will be convenient to discuss
Government amendments Nos. 228 to 235, 240, 247 and 254 to
256.
Mr.
Coaker:
I have 25 pages of notes on the
provisions. [ Hon. Members: “Oh
no!”] I am only joking. It is not a good joke at this time of
night.
These
are technical amendments, which, for example, update the terminology
used to take account of provisions used in the Legal Services Act 2007.
The term “counsel or solicitor” will be replaced with the
term “relevant lawyer”, which will have the meaning
ascribed to it in the 2007 Act. There are a number of other such
technical amendments and, with the Committee’s indulgence I will
move them
formally.
Amendment
agreed to.
Amendments
made: No. 228, in schedule 19, page 203,
line 36, leave out ‘counsel or a solicitor’ and
insert ‘a relevant
lawyer’.
No.
229, in
schedule 19, page 203, line 39, leave
out ‘counsel or a solicitor’ and insert ‘a
relevant
lawyer’.
No.
230, in
schedule 19, page 204, line 2, leave
out ‘counsel or a solicitor’ and insert ‘a
relevant
lawyer’.
No.
231, in
schedule 19, page 204, line 31, at
end
insert—
‘“relevant
lawyer” means a person who, for the purposes of the Legal
Services Act 2007, is an authorised person in relation to an activity
which constitutes the exercise of a right of audience (within the
meaning of that
Act);’.
No.
232, in
schedule 19, page 204, line 44, leave
out ‘regulations’ and insert
‘rules’.
No.
233, in
schedule 19, page 205, line 12, leave
out ‘counsel or a solicitor’ and insert
‘a relevant lawyer within the meaning of
section
84’.
No.
234, in
schedule 19, page 205, line 20, leave
out ‘Regulations
or’.
No.
235, in
schedule 19, page 205, line 22, leave
out from beginning to ‘under’ in line 23 and
insert—
‘(4) For subsection
(5)
substitute—
“(5)
A statutory instrument containing
rules’.—[Mr.
Coaker.]
Question
proposed, That this schedule, as amended, be the Nineteenth
schedule to the Bill.
Mr.
Burrowes:
I do not wish to take up too much time.
Nevertheless, it is important to register some points about this part
of the Bill, albeit that it is one on which we can reach agreement, and
there is consensus on the need for reform of procedures concerning
police misconduct and performance in the investigation of complaints of
police
misconduct.
We
need to avoid the situation which has been referred to in past debates
and reviews as the extreme end, in which a police officer who has
completed two years’ probation and become a full constable is
referred to as almost unsackable. There are also other cases of
low-level misconduct that need to be dealt with expeditiously, properly
and with early resolution at the lowest level. We must respond to
concerns that hearings should be less formal and not over-adversarial,
and ensure that a quasi-judicial adversarial manner, not dissimilar
from a military court tribunal, is not adopted in all cases. We welcome
the moves, following the recommendation of
the Taylor review, to ensure that the mechanism for disciplining
officers is proportionate, timely, transparent, fair and
cost-effective. There
is a need to ensure that investigations proceed expeditiously and that
time limits are in place. Concerns have been raised about the prolonged
amount of time for which police officers are subject to investigation,
particularly those who are suspended—they are referred to as
“gated”—and subject to conditions. For example,
one condition is that they cannot take on any front-line duties. The
concern relayed to me is that the position has been accepted and has
then continued for several months—indeed, for a year in some
cases. The officers have not had a formal resolution while they have
been gated, and they have been in an invidious position while not
knowing the outcome of their misconduct hearing. They are suspended
with conditions.
It is
important to deal with the issue in a timely manner and across the
board—for police officers at the lower as well as the higher end
of the scale. It would be helpful to receive an assurance from the
Minister about the introduction of time limits. They would be helpful
in such situations and would ensure that we would proceed, as we all
would wish, to a quick resolution with a proper, accountable and
transparent approach throughout the
hearings.
Mr.
Coaker:
Schedule 19 makes several amendments to the Police
Act 1996 to enable changes to be made to the procedures for dealing
with police conduct, efficiency and performance. The schedule also
makes equivalent changes to the Ministry of Defence Police Act 1987 for
the purposes of the Ministry of Defence police, and to the Railways and
Transport Safety Act 2003 for the purposes of the British Transport
police. The changes arise out of the recommendations of the Taylor
review into disciplinary arrangements, which was published in January
2005. The recommendations are aimed at improving and modernising police
disciplinary and performance procedures, and they have received the
full support of the Police Advisory Board for England and Wales.
Current procedures for dealing with police officer discipline and poor
performance issues are set out in the Police (Conduct) Regulations 2004
and the Police (Efficiency) (Amendment) Regulations 1999. New proposed
conduct and performance regulations, which are being prepared and are
available for viewing, set out the proposed procedures for dealing with
discipline and performance issues. The proposed regulations will
implement the recommendations of the Taylor review, and they have been
prepared with and approved by the Police Advisory Board for England and
Wales.
The
amendments to the Police Act 1996 in the schedule will permit the
Secretary of State to make regulations setting out new procedures. Time
limits—this has just arrived in my brain—are covered in
draft regulations made under the Bill. They have been consulted on and
we will share them with the Committee in due course.
Question
put and agreed to.
Schedule 19, as amended,
agreed to.
Clause 112 ordered to stand
part of the Bill.
Schedule 20
agreed
to.
Clause 113
ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause
114
Inspection
of police
authorities
Mr.
Heath:
I beg to move amendment No. 340, in
clause 114, page 78, line 6, at end
add—
‘(2AA) In carrying out
an inspection of a police authority under subsection (2A), the
inspectors of constabulary may request one or more other police
authorities (or their representatives) to assess any aspect of
performance and to make a
report.”’.
I
ought to declare my “previous” at the beginning: I was
formerly chair of a police authority and a member of the Audit
Commission, so I have seen the process from both
ends.
8.45
pm
There
is a general view among police authorities that they have no problem
with the sort of joint inspection procedure that the Government have
mind. Indeed, they see advantages in Her Majesty’s inspectorate
of constabulary joining forces with the Audit Commission to look at how
a police authority discharges its
duties.
The
reasons for that are fairly clear: a police authority does not fall
into the normal category of local authorities that are the subject of
Audit Commission work. It is a form of local authority, but it is a
very specialist one that deals with areas that are beyond the normal
range of matters considered by the Audit Commission because of its
policing element. We have an inspectorate—Her Majesty’s
inspectorate of constabulary—that is specifically charged with
looking at policing issues, but nevertheless has little understanding
of the issues relating to local authorities. So, putting the two
together would produce an inspection regime that would cover all
aspects of a police authority’s
role.
This
has been a long-term objective of the Government. They intended to
create the joint procedure in the context of the Police and Justice Act
2006, but the proposal was dropped when there was a substantial change
in that Bill on criminal justice inspections and, save for section 29
of that Bill, the matter was put on the back burner, albeit, I believe,
with the intention of bringing it back at the first opportunity. This
Bill is that
opportunity.
I
am going to argue against not the principle of the proposal, but the
detail in the Bill, because the drafting is somewhat obscure. It relies
on people putting together several different enactments in order to see
exactly what is proposed. Indeed, if one were to read the Bill without
looking at other enactments, one would assume that Her Majesty’s
inspectorate of constabulary was taking over the role of the Audit
Commission and excluding it from the inspection role.
I do not
believe that that is what the Government intend. My understanding is
that they are relying on section 10 of the Local Government Act 1999 to
give the Audit Commission the power to inspect police authorities, and
on section 29 of the Police and Justice Act 2006 to enable Her
Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary to act jointly with a
public authority—in this instance, the Audit Commission. That
forms the structure around which the joint inspections will take place.
It would have been better to have expressed that
explicitly in the Bill, rather than people having to hunt around three
different enactments to find out what the situation
is. My
amendment deals with something that is, to the Association of Police
Authorities, a specific omission: peer review. I hope that the Minister
will accept that I constructed the amendment myself to provide an
opportunity to discuss the matter. The amendment might not be perfect,
so I will accept any drafting amendments that he wishes to make, if he
accepts the principle.
The peer
review element is important. The Association of Police Authorities
thought that it had secured the agreement of the Home Office that peer
review would form part of the inspection process. It was extremely
pleased about that because it had pressed for it for a long time. It
felt that if there was to be a robust investigation process putting
together HMIC and the Audit Commission, while at the same time giving
other police authorities that face the same problems a role in
assessing the performance of a police authority, that would give the
best guarantee of a successful
outcome.
The
association is very disappointed that the Bill does not reflect what it
thought had been agreed with the Home Office. It might still be the
Government’s intention that a peer review should take place, but
the statutory basis on which it would be constructed is not clear. It
would be better if that were made explicit in the clause, which is why
I have tabled the
amendment.
I
hope that the Minister will accept the amendment or, if he accepts the
principle of it, come back with a proposal with an alternative wording.
If he feels that that is not necessary because the objective can be
secured by other means, it would still be helpful if he were to make it
clear to the Committee that it is the Government’s view that
peer review should form an essential part of the inspection process. If
he were to do that, I would not press my amendment to a
Division.
Mr.
Coaker:
I apologise to the Committee, but this important
amendment would have an impact on police authorities across the country
and I need to read my response into the record. When I have done so, I
hope that the hon. Gentleman will feel reassured. Given that my
comments will be read by many people, I hope that the Committee will
bear with me, notwithstanding the lateness of the
hour.
Police
authorities play a critical role in securing continuous improvement in
the police service, and we need to ensure that they are performing
their functions effectively. A systematic process for the assessment of
police authority performance would enable judgments and comparisons to
be made about performance, help to drive further performance
improvement, and make it possible to target support to poorly
performing authorities. It is our intention, therefore, to make it
possible for inspections to be carried out jointly by Her
Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary and the Audit Commission
across the full range of police authority
functions.
While
the inspectorate of constabulary and the Audit Commission between them
will bring to bear wide professional expertise and knowledge of
policing and the inspection of police authorities, we agree that police
authorities provide valuable experience that should be available as
part of any inspection process. We see peer
review by authorities forming an integral part of the programme of
inspections carried out by the inspectorate of constabulary and the
Audit Commission. However, it is right that legislation specifies at
this stage only the bodies that will have responsibility for inspecting
authorities and the extent of the inspection
process. Giving
an element of the inspection process legislative force, as is suggested
by the amendment, would confer unnecessary prominence, reduce
flexibility and limit the ability to take account of different
circumstances in different police authorities. I would argue that that
sort of detail is best set out in the joint inspection framework and
methodology that will be developed to inform the work. A protocol will
be drawn up by all those involved and will provide a clear basis on
which to manage a programme of inspection activities. It will set out
the respective roles and responsibilities of all the bodies involved
and ensure that all appropriate skills and knowledge are
available.
The
protocol will be developed with the Association of Police Authorities
to ensure that its knowledge and understanding of the work of
authorities is reflected. The role of peer review will be spelled out.
The inspectorate of constabulary and the Audit Commission are ready to
explore how best to bring that into the inspection
process.
I
might further add that the Home Affairs Committee report on police
funding welcomed the development of an inspection framework by the
inspectorate of constabulary and the Audit Commission, and supported
its speedy implementation. I hope that with my reference to the
importance of peer review, the hon. Gentleman will feel sufficiently
reassured.
Mr.
Heath:
That was an extremely helpful recital of the
Government’s position. It is also possible to take perverse
pleasure in the fact that Ministers and shadow Ministers can sometimes
aggravate Whips who do not provide sufficient time for proper
consideration by increasing the length of our consideration of such
matters. That is quite apart from the intrinsic importance of the
announcement that the Minister just made, but, in both respects, the
Minister’s response has been helpful, so I thank him for it. I
beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment,
by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 114
ordered to stand part of the Bill.
| 
