UK Parliament / Open data

Police and Justice Bill

Proceeding contribution from Baroness Scotland of Asthal (Labour) in the House of Lords on Tuesday, 10 October 2006. It occurred during Debate on bills on Police and Justice Bill.
moved Amendment No. 96: Page 111, line 5, at end insert- ““( ) Before preparing an inspection programme the Chief Inspector shall carry out such consultation as he considers appropriate with persons appearing to him to be responsible for the functions, establishments or other matters to be dealt with by the inspections he proposes to include in the programme. The Chief Inspector shall send a copy of the inspection programme, once it is prepared, to each person consulted about it under this sub-paragraph.”” The noble Baroness said: My Lords, paragraph 9 of Schedule 9 to the Bill makes it a statutory obligation for the chief inspector to consult various specified bodies when preparing an inspection programme. That is intended to ensure the responsiveness of the inspection regime to those it serves. In Committee, my noble friend Lady Henig asked that we specifically include among the bodies which must be consulted those that will be inspected as part of the proposed programme. At the time, I agreed to bring back an appropriate government amendment to place such a requirement on the chief inspector. I should add that we are aware that many other kinds of bodies are now regularly consulted by the five inspectorates on their programmes—for example, the Association of Police Authorities in respect of police inspections. The amendment does not preclude the continuation by the new chief inspector of those consultations; it merely emphasises the need for consultation with those most directly impacted on by an inspection. We do not think that it would be sensible to attempt to list all the other existing and potential consultees in legislation. In our view, the continuation of existing arrangements is something that can be left to the good sense of the chief inspector. We are very reluctant to leave out someone whom it might then be necessary to include. Therefore, I hope that noble Lords will be content with the amendment. I beg to move.

About this proceeding contribution

Reference

685 c209 

Session

2005-06

Chamber / Committee

House of Lords chamber
Back to top