---

Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill

moved Amendment No. 166N: 166N: Clause 180, leave out Clause 180 and insert the following new Clause— ““Inspection of police authorities (1) In section 1 of the Local Government Act 1999 (c. 27) (best value authorities)— (a) in subsection (1), for ““subsection (8)”” substitute ““subsections (7A) and (8)””; (b) in subsection (6)(c) for ““subsection (8)”” substitute ““subsections (7A) or (8)””; (c) after subsection (7) insert— ““(7A) A police authority is not a best value authority for the purposes of the following provisions of this Part— (a) section 10 (inspections); (b) section 24 (Police Act 1996).”” (2) In section 54 of the Police Act 1996 (c. 16) (appointment and functions of inspectors of constabulary), for subsection (2A) substitute— (2A) The inspectors of constabulary may carry out an inspection of, and report to the Secretary of State on, a police authority’s performance of its functions jointly with the Audit Commission for Local Authorities and the NHS in England in respect of police authorities in England or with the Auditor General for Wales in respect of police authorities in Wales. (2AA) The inspectors of constabulary, acting jointly with the Audit Commission for Local Authorities, and the NHS in England and the Auditor General for Wales shall prepare a document (a ““joint inspection programme””) setting out what inspections of police authorities they propose to carry out, and shall consult the Association for Police Authorites in preparing a joint inspection programme. (2AB) If the Audit Commission for Local Authorities and the NHS in England or the Auditor General for Wales is proposing to carry out an inspection of a police authority and the inspectors of constabulary consider that the proposed inspection would impose an unreasonable burden on that police authority, or would do so if carried out in a particular manner, the inspectors of constabulary shall give a notice to the Audit Commission for local authorities and the NHS in England or the Auditor General for Wales not to carry out the proposed inspection or not to carry it out in that manner. (2AC) In exercising their function to conduct police authority inspections, the inspectors of constabulary, Audit Commission for local authorities and the NHS in England and Auditor General for Wales shall secure that persons nominated by the Association of Police Authorities will assist in conducting such inspections.”””” The noble Baroness said: The aim of this amendment, which stands in my name and that of the noble Baroness, Lady Harris, who unfortunately cannot be present, is to make clear in the Bill the intention that police authorities should be inspected jointly by Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary and the Audit Commission. I declare an interest at the outset as a former police authority chairman and a former chair and current president of the Association of Police Authorities. I very much hope that the Government will accept this amendment because it seeks to achieve much the same outcome as is intended in the Bill; that is, joint inspection of police authorities by Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary and the Audit Commission, but in a way which I believe is much clearer. I will speak about other important elements in a moment. First, I emphasise that I am a strong supporter of the open and transparent inspection of police authorities. Inspection helps to drive improvements in performance and to reassure the public that authorities are doing their job of effectively holding the local police to account. Without an independent check on effectiveness it is all too easy to cast doubt on the value of police authorities. So I completely support the intentions of this clause but I have difficulty with the wording of the Bill. An inexperienced eye might think that it deals only with Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary’s inspection of police authorities but I am sure my noble friend will confirm that this is not the intention. Historically, police authority inspection has been conducted under the Local Government Act 1999, but this Act has been so much amended, and counter-amended, with some elements repealed and others added, that it hardly provides clarity. Indeed, I had great trouble following the various changes made to it in putting forward this amendment, and apologise to the Committee if there are technical errors in the drafting as a result. On top of this, it is possible to argue that the 1999 Act does not allow for joint inspection at all but delegates all police authority inspection to HMIC. I know my noble friend will say that there is another argument that says it does allow joint inspection. But my point is that this is not clear or completely beyond doubt, and this is before we begin to consider other legislation that affects police authority inspection. This makes for a muddled and confusing landscape. Police authority inspection is important and I argue that we should have wording that puts it on a proper and considered footing, which is what my amendment seeks to do. The additional elements I have included in this amendment are: a ““gatekeeper”” role for Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary in ensuring that inspections do not place an unreasonable burden on authorities; a peer review element in police authority inspections; and a provision that the Association of Police Authorities should be consulted about inspection programmes. HMIC has already been given a ““gatekeeper”” role in relation to police authorities, but this is only through secondary legislation passed as a result of the Police and Justice Act 2006. That Act did not in itself deal with police authority inspection and as a result joint inspection of police authorities was not specifically anticipated by it. This amendment ties the ““gatekeeper”” role directly to police authority inspections conducted jointly with the Audit Commission. A peer review element to police authority inspections is absolutely essential. I have argued before that neither HMIC nor the Audit Commission has all the requisite knowledge and expertise about police authorities to conduct effective inspections, but that this can be greatly enhanced by the presence of individuals with a police authority background. In the past I have myself contributed to prototype inspections of this sort and know that the inspectors—in this case HMIC—found police authority input extremely helpful. So I was pleased to learn from the Association of Police Authorities that the Government had agreed to a peer review element in the inspection of police authorities. My amendment would simply put that agreement on a statutory footing. It is important to do so to ensure that inspection teams include individuals with the relevant knowledge, expertise and experience about police authorities to ensure that inspection is robust and authoritative. Finally, as there will be a peer review element to inspections, which will be co-ordinated by the Association of Police Authorities, it is essential that the association is consulted about inspection programmes so that it can ensure that the right people are in the right place at the right time to assist with inspections. I commend the amendment to the Committee. I beg to move.