Skip to main content

Proceeding contribution from Baroness Harris of Richmond (Liberal Democrat) in the House of Lords on Wednesday, 23 April 2008. It occurred during Debate on bill on Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill.


Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill

My Lords, I was very happy to put my name to this amendment. I also declare an interest as a vice-president of the Association of Police Authorities, a former deputy chair of that organisation and a former chair of North Yorkshire Police Authority. The clause looks fairly innocuous, but we have been here before—and on many an occasion I have spoken about the best value legislation, because I have felt that police authorities should not be subject to it. But there we are. I am not clear why the Government think that this amendment would change the statutory functions of the APA. Most of the provisions in the amendment suggest that it be consulted about inspection proposals—but the APA is already a statutory consultee, so what is new? I do not see that the provision about the APA nominating peer reviewers to contribute to inspections confers functions of a different nature on the APA. It certainly does not confer inspection powers; it merely says that the APA will organise which peer reviewers will contribute to inspections. I also have difficulty imagining what type of inspection might preclude some police authority input, or on what occasion inspectors might understand better the business of police authorities than people drawn from police authorities. I am also concerned about how these inspections are to be funded. I understand that discussions have taken place in the Home Office about how to pay the Audit Commission for doing the inspections—because, believe me, it will charge. I also wonder how the Government propose that a peer review might be funded. Perhaps the Minister could tell us whether any progress has been made on those discussions. I support the inspection of police authorities. It is the question of how they are inspected and by whom on which the public needs clarity. There is no clarity at present and the Government’s proposals in no way help that process. I hope that the Minister will carefully consider the amendment, which is eminently sensible and really ought to be accepted.


Secondary information

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
700 c1616-7 
Session
2007-08
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
Subjects
Children Disclosure of information Criminal proceedings Crime Asylum Armed forces Crimes of violence Deportation Army Anti-social behaviour Civil proceedings Devolution Court orders Air force Custodial treatment Hospitals Industrial relations Families Evidence Human rights Inspections Health professions Hospices Misconduct Offenders NHS Parents Police Prisons Newspaper press Police authorities Navy Mental health Anti-social behaviour orders Scotland Young people Young offenders Security Strikes HM Prison Service Hijacking Local safeguarding children boards
Legislation
Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill 2006-07 to 2007-08
Link
View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk