| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Boateng: I did not think the spirit in which the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins) presented his arguments did justice to the serious and important debate in which we engaged in Committee--to which the hon. Gentleman made a valuable contribution--and the attack on my noble Friend Lord Bassam was utterly unwarranted.
Miss Widdecombe: Oh no it wasn't.
"Even-handed" and "fair-minded" are not terms that spring to mind in characterisation of the hon. Gentleman's contributions, so he really ought to take care before casting aspersions on my noble Friend--who, as the hon. Gentleman will discover if he reads Hansard, valiantly tried to put Lady Blatch right when she was insisting on moving immediately to a vote on an amendment that included the phrase "any time", because it would have prevented the accommodation of dangerous offenders not on licence. All Opposition Members know the importance of ensuring that we can accommodate that small but dangerous group, regardless of whether they are on licence. The hon. Gentleman rightly does not push Lady Blatch's proposal to a vote, because to do so would undermine the purposes of public protection. He knows that, and he ought to have had the generosity of spirit to admit it.
Clause 9 ensures that all who are accommodated in hostels are there for supervision or rehabilitation. Supervision, in relation to dangerous offenders or ex-offenders, lies at the heart of all that the probation service does in such hostels. We need to do more to give more recognition to the important work that hostels do.
I am glad that the amendment will not be pressed to a Division, and urge our amendments on the House.
Lords amendment No. 15 disagreed to.
Lords amendments Nos. 16 to 24 agreed to.
Clause 7
Lords amendment: No. 25, in page 4, line 30, at end insert
(", provided that no such direction shall merge the functions of the Chief Inspector with those of Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Prisons").
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Jack Straw): I beg to move, That this House disagrees with the Lords in the said amendment.
This is the first opportunity I have had to join my right hon. Friend the Minister of State in congratulating the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) on his appointment.
Let me deal with the drafting--the technical reasons why the amendment should not be accepted--before dealing with the substantive issue. Technically, it is very defective. As the words in brackets suggest, it would lay down in law the impossibility of merging
- the functions of the Chief Inspector with those of Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Prisons.
Let me now turn to the substantive issue, on which I hope to reassure the House. The power of direction for which clause 7 provides enables the Secretary of State to give directions to the probation service. It has nothing to do with the Prison Service, and it would therefore have no effect.
I have spent rather more years in opposition than any Opposition Member--
Mr. Straw: Too long--although I can tell the hon. Gentleman that 18 years provides good training.
Anyway, having spent some time in opposition, I do not criticise the Opposition for the fact that their amendment is technically defective. Nevertheless, I hope they will accept that it is.
Let me proceed to the substantive issue: whether it would be appropriate to merge the inspecting functions of the chief inspector of prisons with those of the chief inspector of probation.
Mr. Simon Hughes (Southwark, North and Bermondsey): May I return to the question of the drafting?
I understand that the amendment may have technical deficiencies, but I think the Home Secretary's argument was that because clauses 6 and 7 deal with the inspectorate of the probation service, the formulation allowing the option of a merger would not work. That is at best arguable, and, as the Government have not-- I think--offered any drafting alternative, I hope the right hon. Gentleman does not consider his technical objections to be related to the substance even of the drafting. There may be a technical problem, but according to my reading, it is not a substantive technical problem--although there is a debate about that.
6 pm
Mr. Straw: I shall come to the substantive issue, which is the important part of this point. I hope to provide reassurance to the House, not least by reference to a written answer to a question tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Corby (Mr. Hope) which I gave earlier today. The Lords amendment, which relates only to the functions
of local probation boards, would not achieve the desired effect. The Secretary of State would not be prohibited from using the existing statutory provisions--the Prison Act 1952, as amended. They relate to the inspector of probation and therefore allow a single person to combine the functions of both posts.I come to the substance of the matter. On 9 June in a written answer, I told the House that I was delighted that Her Majesty had consented to extend the appointment of the chief inspector of prisons, Sir David Ramsbotham, until 2001. I added that Sir David has
- made a great contribution to our shared goal of ensuring that prisoners are held securely in safe, decent and healthy establishments. I am pleased that he will continue in his role beyond the expiry date of his original appointment.
Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Probation, Sir Graham Smith, also retires close to the end of July 2001.
- the Government flexibility in considering how best to ensure that the arrangements for inspection of prisons and the probation service best support closer working between the services as well-ensuring that the individual services continue to be inspected rigorously and independently as they have been. I shall be making a further statement to Parliament on this in due course.--[Official Report, 9 June 2000; Vol. 351, c. 392-93W.]
The consultation period ended on 31 October. We told the consultees that their responses would be made public and placed in the Library, unless they objected, and I am making arrangements for that. However, it may help if I summarise those responses, as I have in the written answer that I gave earlier today, and say what decisions have been taken. A majority of consultees favoured some change, including the establishment of terms of reference for the inspection of joint working between the criminal justice agencies and the sharing of inspectors between the inspectorates. By contrast, only small minorities were in favour of either the status quo or the appointment of a single joint chief inspector for prisons and probation.
During the consultation exercise, a helpful scheme was suggested by Her Majesty's chief inspectors of constabulary, the Crown Prosecution Service, the magistrates courts and the probation and prison services to inspect practice across their boundaries systematically. That scheme, which I hope commends itself to the House, has much to recommend it and the consultation exercise also suggests that it will command broad support. It is therefore the option that I propose to pursue, along with the arrangements canvassed in the consultation exercise for bringing the work of the inspectorates much closer together.
As I made clear in my June answer, we shall have an opportunity to establish new arrangements when both inspectors retire next July. For completeness, it may help
if I refer to the concluding paragraph of my written answer. Sir David and Sir Graham have plainly made significant contributions to raising standards in the prison and probation services. I am grateful to them for their work, and I am sure that that is reflected by the House as a whole. In view of the retirements in July next year, I shall advertise both chief inspector posts in the new year. My answer does not refer to the terms of reference of the appointments, but plainly they will take account of the new arrangements for joint inspections of the kind proposed by the five inspectorates to which I referred.In view of my substantive remarks, I understand some of the anxieties raised in the other place about a single joint inspectorate, and it was right to consult both Houses of Parliament as well as those outside who are interested in the future of the inspectorates. We have run a genuine consultation exercise and have reached conclusions based on how best to take the services forward. I hope that they will command wide support and that the House will accept both the spirit in which I have moved the motion to disagree and its consequence.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |