---

Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill

moved Amendment No. 114E: 114E: Clause 128, leave out Clause 128 and insert the following new Clause— ““Inspection of police authorities (1) In section 1 of the Local Government Act 1999 (c. 27) (authorities that are best value authorities)— (a) in subsection (1), omit paragraph (d); and (b) omit subsection (4). (2) Section 24 of that Act (which amends the Police Act 1996) is repealed. (3) Section 6(1) of the Police Act 1996 (c. 16) (general functions of police authorities) is amended as follows— (a) In paragraph (a) the word ““economic,”” shall be inserted before the word ““efficient”” and the word ““and”” shall be deleted at the end of the paragraph; (b) At the end of paragraph (b) there is inserted ““, and (c) shall make arrangements to secure continuous improvement in the way in which its functions and those of the police force for its area are exercised””. (4) In section 54 of that Act (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 National Health Service in England in respect of police authorites in England or with the Auditor General for Wales in respect of police authorities in Wales. (2B) The inspectors of constabulary, acting jointly with the Audit Commission for Local Authorities and the National Health Service 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 of Police Authorities in preparing a joint inspection programme. (2C) The inspectors of constabulary, acting jointly with the Audit Commission for Local Authorities and the National Health Service in England the Auditor General for Wales shall prepare a document (a ““joint inspection framework””) setting out the manner in which it is proposed to carry out and report on inspections, and shall consult the Association of Police Authorities in preparing a joint inspection framework. (2D) If the Audit Commission for Local Authorities and the National Health Service 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 National Health Service in England or the Auditor General in Wales not to carry out the proposed inspection or not to carry it out in that manner. (2E) In exercising their function to conduct police authority inspections, the inspectors of constabulary, Audit Commission for Local Authorities and the National Health Service in England and Auditor General in Wales shall secure that persons nominated by the Association of Police Authorities will assist in conducting such inspections.”””” The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in bringing forward the amendment I again declare an interest as the president of the Association of Police Authorities and former chairman of both that organisation and the Lancashire Police Authority. I am sure that everyone will be pleased that I shall be as brief as I possibly can be at this hour of the night. I thank the noble Lord for his letter to me and our subsequent meeting, which clarified the Government’s position on this issue. I am sure that we are united in wishing to see an effective inspection regime put in place for police authorities, and I am very pleased that he welcomes the involvement of the Association of Police Authorities in developing inspection protocols. However, I remain unconvinced that the clause represents the right way to go in how police authorities will be inspected for the following reasons. Nowhere in primary legislation is the phrase ““joint inspection”” used about the future proposals for inspecting police authorities, although I know that this is what is intended. Joint inspection can merely be inferred by looking at a number of different Acts relating to local authority and police inspections. As I have noted before, interpretation is ambiguous and, despite the noble Lord’s assurance on this point in his letter to me, this remains arguable in the absence of clear wording. I also have grave and serious doubts about the principle of hanging these inspection provisions on best value legislation, which is otherwise known as the Local Government Act 1999. This is another aspect of the legislation which is ambiguous because it is not clear whether the Audit Commission, HMIC or both have this function under current arrangements. Again the meaning is at least arguable and not beyond doubt. In addition, many provisions of the Act have subsequently been repealed or replaced. Why formulate new proposals around legislation which is being phased out in practice? My amendment would overcome these objections because, first, it acknowledges the problem with best value legislation by removing police authorities from its scope altogether. It acknowledges that there will be some consequences to this and suggests ways of overcoming these—for instance, by including a specific responsibility on police authorities to ensure economy, which will compensate for the parallel provisions in the Local Government Act 1999. Then it sets out clear alternative proposals about joint police authority inspection between HMIC and the Audit Commission and explains, most importantly, that it will involve some police authority input on a peer review basis. I stated in Committee why I thought this was a crucial provision and, while I am very pleased that the Government agree that all this should happen in practice, I remain puzzled about their reluctance to place this in legislation. I am a strong supporter of the principle of inspecting police authorities, but they deserve considered legislation which is clear about what is intended and sets this out in one place so that it can be easily understood. I am asking whether it is possible for the Government to agree to that. The most important reason this matters is that it is difficult to see how authorities can be made more accountable to communities if the legislation about how they are inspected is so complex and scattered that it is unreasonable to expect those communities to understand it. Surely it is right that local communities should understand one of the key ways in which the state ensures that authorities are doing their job properly. It is in this spirit of endorsing local accountability and making it as transparent as possible that I beg to move.