Clause 11
Requirements under sections 9 and 10: supplemental
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Mrs. Gillan: Clause 11 is really all about the practical details of the assessments. In particular, it puts the obligations on police officers, who seem to be doing most of the administration.
I find it extraordinary that the Bill has so much detail about the administrative arrangements, particularly in the light of the dearth of provisions on X-rays and ultrasound scans, and that the Minister usually likes to rely on secondary legislation to put any of the flesh on the bones. One of the sad markers of this
Column Number: 162
Bill is that so much of the real detail that we should be examining in Committee will be subject to orders at another time and place and will not have the detailed scrutiny that we could otherwise have given it. Again, I presume that that is to do with the political timetable and the haste with which the Minister was keen to have something to wave in the air and enable her to say that she was doing something about the drugs problem.
Clause 11 has some detailed provisions about what policemen must and must not do. One of the questions that I have is about the police officer who has to inform the person of the time and place at which the initial assessment is to take place under subsection 2(a), and then explain that the information will be confirmed in writing under subsection 2(b). Presumably, they will repeat all that information later in writing and send it to a person who the Minister said may or may not have somewhere to live. That was one of the things that she wanted to ascertain in the initial assessment. So some practical difficulties arise. I am not sure how the police officer would confirm all that in writing if the person could leave the police station and walk away. It would not be known until the initial assessment whether the person had somewhere to live or whether they were homeless. I am taking the Minister's own words. [Interruption.] The Minister said from a sedentary position that the person would need to be charged, but they would not, would they? That is the problem: they would be only under arrest, not charged. The Minister should fill in that gap in logic.
I move on to subsection (8). If the Bill is to include details of what police officers must or must not do, it is worth querying whether a great deal of qualified police officers' time will be taken up. Subsection (8) states that
''a police officer or a suitably qualified person may give the person a further notice in writing . . . .of any change to the time when, or to the place at which, the initial assessment is to take place.''
I would leave the police officer out of that process completely. Why would they need to be engaged in it? Presumably, either the assessor or the client would change the time or place of the initial assessment by some sort of agreement. We cannot call the person anything other than a client, because they would not be guilty of an offence; they would not have been charged, only under arrest.
Why not simplify matters for the police? Rather than putting all that into the Bill, why not have practical provisions so that guidelines can be established? If the Bill is enacted, the House of Commons will have to go to a remarkable amount of time and trouble to change all the provisions. Primary legislation will have to be considered and amended—even, for example, to include giving notification by e-mail. As technology moves on, there will be a great deal of difficulty.
My plea to the Minister is that she should consider again the drafting of the Bill before Report and Third Reading. Things that ought to be in the Bill seem not to be, yet unnecessary detail is included that will cause us even more problems.
Column Number: 163
Mr. Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD): I suggest to the hon. Lady that because the sanction of criminal prosecution is attached to failure to attend, it is necessary to include such things in the Bill. Many people to whom it will apply will lead chaotic lives, and will no doubt have a history of claiming, ''I didn't know'' or ''I forgot'', and all the rest of it. That sort of detail is necessary because of the Government's decision to attach a criminal sanction.
Mrs. Gillan: The Minister may make that point; it is useful that the hon. Gentleman has helped her out in that chivalrous fashion.
Mr. Carmichael: Actually, I was trying to help the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham.
Mrs. Gillan: Thank you; I welcome help from any quarter. However, I still think that some parts of the Bill have gone into excruciating detail, and that others seem very light on detail.
Mr. Clapham: Earlier, the hon. Lady referred to the amount of time that police officers in the custody suite would take in complying with clause 11. I am sure that she will have had letters from the Police Federation that raise issues about the likelihood of the custody suite sergeant being replaced by civilian personnel. I have had such letters. It appears that a police officer may not deal with the provisions of clause 11, but that some highly trained person will deal with them. The police will be freed up to be on the front line.
Mrs. Gillan: We have a problem of police numbers. If the Conservative party wins the next election, it will put 40,000 more police officers on the beat.
Caroline Flint: Just like that?
Mrs. Gillan: That would happen over a reasonable period. I feel that, even if the detail is there because of the criminal sanctions that the Minister seeks to impose, we could give the police officer a bit of a rest from subsection (8). I do not see why a police officer should be included in that process.
Caroline Flint: We included such details for the reasons outlined by the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Carmichael). There is an offence attached to people not complying, and we think it appropriate to provide the safeguards in the Bill because we want to ensure that the process can stand up to people suggesting that it had not been followed or that they were not informed. In the end, that would create yet more bureaucracy. As I said, the Bill has been before the drugs committee of the Association of Chief Police Officers, which seems to be happy with it.
10.45 am
Mr. Carmichael: For a moment, I shall don my hat as a former prosecutor.
This sort of detail is necessary in order to establish the case in the event of prosecution. Outlining it in step-by-step measures will greatly assist the prosecuting authorities.
Column Number: 164
Caroline Flint: There is not much to add. You win some, you lose some. We are criticised for not having enough in the Bill, and then criticised for having too much.
Mrs. Gillan: My problem is that I started life on the defence side, and it is beginning to show.
Caroline Flint: The notice should be given in writing before the person leaves detention. It is not only about people being charged; it is also about people who have been arrested. In the guidance, we will emphasise the need to schedule the assessment at a time that will not lead to a charge. It is important to have such a provision.
My hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone spoke about custody officers. That is the subject of another piece of legislation, so I will check that we have it absolutely right. On the second point, about those offences in connection with a further assessment, it does not necessarily mean that a police officer would have to do it; it is left open.
I am pleased by the enthusiasm and engagement that the police have shown in our drug intervention programme, and in their work with health service professionals, PCTs, community groups and local authorities on the crime and disorder reduction partnerships. Police officers, of whatever rank, are enthusiastic because, for a number of years, they have been seeing such people coming to the police station time and time again. Their enthusiasm is buoyed up by the fact that they can play a constructive part in getting to the heart of the problem and finding the reason for people's reoffending. Police officers, like everyone else, do not like unnecessary paperwork, and the programme has been put together in consultation with the police. We are always looking for ways to reduce bureaucracy, but bureaucracy is sometimes necessary—and this is one those times.
Clause 11 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 12
Attendance at initial assessment
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Mrs. Gillan: Leading naturally on from clause 11, clause 12(2) states:
''The initial assessor must inform a police officer or a police support officer''.
The police support officer has now crept into the equation, and I want to know why. If we are to keep police officers in that role, it is inexplicable that the police support officer should suddenly be given a role. If the police support officer is included here, why could he not be included in the informing requirements of clause 11? That is my first question.
My second question is a qualitative one. I ask the Minister to speculate about the relationship between the assessor and the client, for the simple reason that the assessor has the burden of reporting a failure to attend the initial assessment or remain for its duration. It is very much an absolute clause. As we have already
Column Number: 165
said, we are dealing with a group of chaotic people who may have personality problems. There may be conflict, and the session may be interrupted by a falling-out between the assessor and the client. The clause does not seem to make provision for that.
I presume that an assessor would have the latitude to halt an assessment, walk away from it, and suggest that it continues at another time, in another place, and perhaps even with another assessor. That is the point on which I need the Minister's help. What would happen if an assessor wished to change the arrangements, stop the procedure halfway through or make a practical arrangement? Suppose the assessor has to stop the assessment because something intervenes in his or her life. For example, what if a lady is assessing, and she gets a call and has to pick her child up from school because he or she has fallen over in the playground? What would happen in those instances, because the assessor may fail to inform the police? That is a series of questions about the absolute nature of the clause.
| 
