|
Caroline Flint: In answer to the first question, the reason why the assessor has to notify the police, rather than a police officer, is purely practical. One is basically informing them that someone has not turned up for, or has left during, an assessment. That issue might be taken up by support staff working with the police, and it is just an administrative matter. Obviously, if there is follow-up, and the offence of not taking part is applied, that would be taken up by the police officer.
It may be that a police station has someone to answer the phone. Many police stations now have support staff working with police officers to help them with the admin. For example, they might deal with calls from crime victims and people who ring up to ask what is happening to their case; they do not necessarily have to speak to the investigating officer. That is a way of providing a more effective police service, and of not tying police officers to desks unnecessarily. I am sure that the hon. Lady will agree with that. So, the measure is purely practical.
The hon. Lady raised a number of points, and if I do not cover them all, I will be happy to write to her more fully about the process. We are talking about the initial assessment or, where appropriate, a follow-up assessment. If the person does not take part, that is linked to committing an offence, and so it is important that the information is relayed to the police.
In terms of wider care plan issues, of course there are different relationships. To take what currently happens to people under the guidance of probation officers, they may be getting support for drug addiction, or other support, and may turn up for an education course or what have you. There has to be someone in the system who takes responsibility for overseeing whether the person is complying. If they are not complying, that has to be logged and reported. That does not mean that other people cannot have relationships with that individual, developed on the basis of whether they are there for drug treatment,
Column Number: 166
education or training, but at the end of the day someone has to be the person in authority; otherwise, there could be chaos in the system.
It is important to recognise that the initial assessment and the follow-up is really for getting to grips with the person, and for deciding whether they want to engage in a care plan, how we develop that plan and so on. Others might have a closer developmental relationship, although in this role it is somewhat different. There could be a number of scenarios. If someone has been knocked over by a bus and cannot make the appointment, or if there were any other issues, the assessor could change the time and place. That would not prejudice the situation and the person would not be guilty of an offence. Similarly, if something else happened, another assessor might be able to take on the assessment at short notice. However, we would not want that to be too widespread. We should have expectations of people, and the arrangements should be made to work at the right time and the right place, as agreed in the first instance.
Mrs. Gillan: Based on the evidence that she took before introducing these procedures, how long would the Minister envisage an initial and a follow-up assessment taking?
Caroline Flint: That is difficult to say, because we will be dealing with different scenarios, but I can get the hon. Lady some information about them. To give an example, the assessment might be very quick if the person just says, ''I'm not interested.'' The assessor would explain what will happen, mentioning that there will be a report and that the court will be aware that an assessor has been engaged, although I hasten to add that that will not be linked to the person's offence if they go to court. If the person has not been charged, the assessor will also explain how that will be dealt with. The person will be informed of the reasons behind the assessment, what their options are and what the consequences may be. If they just say, ''I'm not interested. I'm out of here'', it will be a very short assessment, but it could be anything from half an hour to two hours.
I should emphasise again that we are talking not about an interview to define every single detail of the individual's care plan, but about an initial assessment. We should also be conscious of the fact that, however long the assessment lasts, the first few minutes of engagement are probably the most important, because the assessment is about making a connection with someone so that they are willing to listen further. However, I am told that the assessment could last from 30 minutes to two hours. I should have thought that anything longer would be pushing it a bit. If the person gets through the assessment, meets someone else and is then willing to take up the opportunity of receiving treatment, that couple of hours will have been well used.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 12 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Column Number: 167
Clause 13
Arrangements for follow-up assessment
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Mrs. Gillan: The Minister said earlier that she anticipated producing guidance on this issue. Leaving aside the detail involved, when will the guidance come into being? Will it be consulted on? When will the provisions be up and running?
Caroline Flint: We will be consulting on the guidance and the time frames, and one of the issues to be considered is how we expand assessment provision in a number of areas. However, I will be happy to write to the hon. Lady with more detail. I hope that that will suffice for now.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 13 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 14
Attendance at follow-up assessment
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
11 am
Mrs. Gillan: I thank the Committee for bearing with me; I am getting tired of the sound of my own voice, but I have just a couple of questions about the clause.
Subsection (3) states:
''A person is guilty of an offence if without good cause . . . he fails to attend''.
The penalty is 51 weeks' imprisonment or a level 4 fine, which is quite serious. May I therefore ask what ambit is envisaged in the phrase ''good cause''? The provision is very open-ended, and I should like to know what would and would not constitute good cause. What thought and discussions have gone into the drafting?
Caroline Flint: It is quite difficult to include in a Bill all the circumstances that might arise. To return to our previous discussion, if someone was knocked down by a bus and did not manage to arrive at an appointment, that could be a good cause. There may be others as well. I think that the matters will partly be brought together by our experience so far of the voluntary situation. I will write to the hon. Lady, if that is okay with her. We would obviously want to give guidance as to how the good cause should be interpreted. As I said, we should be mindful that the definition is not so wide as to make a mockery of the process. That is key.
Mrs. Gillan: That is my very point. The clause is framed so widely that I or people much cleverer than me could probably make a good cause to avoid the penalty and the benefits of the provision. For example, we are dealing with a clientele who may have a genuine fear of going to the assessment and of what might follow. That might be considered a good cause. The clause is drafted so widely that it would be pretty easy to get around.
Column Number: 168
Caroline Flint: The hon. Lady makes a valid point. If somebody does not attend and that is made an offence under the Bill, the courts will have to determine the term ''without good cause''. The point is, however, that we should be giving guidance to the people implementing the measure so that if they go to court they do so on the basis that the prosecution will be successful. It would not be helpful if a number of cases were brought to the court and the court said that they were ridiculous, because they were obviously good causes. We do not want to create unnecessary use of court time. In some situations, it is inevitable that someone might not attend. I hope that we can cover that in the guidance, which we will base on working with drug addicts and on their attendance and participation in other drug treatments under other programmes. I hope that she is satisfied with that response.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 14 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 15
Disclosure of information about assessments
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Mrs. Gillan: Clause 15 deals with disclosure of information about the assessments. I have only a brief point to make, but clarification from the Minister would certainly help me, if not the rest of the Committee.
Subsection (1) states:
''An initial assessor may disclose information obtained as a result of an initial assessment to any of the following—
(a) a person who is involved in the conduct of the assessment;
(b) a person who is or may be involved in the conduct of any follow-up assessment.''
That is a specific restriction on who can have information that has been adduced from the initial assessment. Clause 17(4), however, reads:
''An initial assessor may disclose information relating to an initial assessment for the purpose of enabling a court considering an application for bail by the person concerned to determine whether subsection (2) or (3) applies.''
What is the definition of being
''involved in the conduct of the assessment'',
and to whom will it apply? Is it the police officer who took the client into custody? Is it any replacement officer who has taken over on the case, because police officers move around and their involvement is not always continuous? What about the probation officer, who will need information on the assessment to move the individual forward? We are talking about individuals who often have complex roles and are subject to intervention from various bodies. What about a prison officer or governor, who will be involved in the interim between the first assessment and any follow-up assessment if the due process of law has kicked in and the individual concerned has been put into a custodial situation, either as a result of
Column Number: 169
sentencing or because they are on remand? What about a doctor or other medical staff involved in the emergency treatment of that individual?
I am sorry to throw up a range of examples, but I suggest that the issue is important if there is intended to be a restriction, qualified only by clause 17(4), on the people who can receive information from the initial assessment. Again, the Bill is narrowing down a provision, which will mean that the individual is prevented from receiving the wider help that is envisaged elsewhere in the Bill.
| 
