Mrs Cheryl Gillan (Shadow Minister, Home Affairs; Chesham & Amersham, Conservative)

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   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.

Ms Caroline Flint (Parliamentary Under-Secretary (reducing organised and international crime, anti drugs co-ordination and international and European issues), Home Office; Don Valley, Labour)

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,   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 Cheryl Gillan (Shadow Minister, Home Affairs; Chesham & Amersham, Conservative)

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?

Ms Caroline Flint (Parliamentary Under-Secretary (reducing organised and international crime, anti drugs co-ordination and international and European issues), Home Office; Don Valley, Labour)

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.