Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
The inspectorates have also agreed to review the use of resources and back office support to identify any efficiency gains which can be redeployed to joint working. They have agreed to report quarterly on the progress of those arrangements to Ministers. Those proposals have
convinced the Government that we can achieve our objectives in relation to the criminal justice system more quickly by focusing our efforts on strengthening and improving joint working across the inspectorates, rather than on proposals for organisational merger at this time. That is underpinned by the clear commitments of each of the chief inspectors to deliver real improvements in joint working.
The two Opposition amendments were tabled in the context of the original part 4 of the Bill which laid out an enforced merger, rather than a voluntary processa dispute we have just had in relation to police forces. Because of pressure from the inspectorates, we have reflected and agree that a voluntary arrangement is more likely to achieve the policy outcomes that we both desire. We have removed the compulsory dimension.
We have assurances from the five inspectorates about the way in which they will achieve those policy outcomes voluntarily, and therefore the amendments are not necessary. We have withdrawn the bulk of part 4 of the Bill. In its place we have applied to each of the existing inspectorates the provisions in part 4 for delegation of functions, inspection programmes and frameworks, gatekeeping in respect of inspections by other inspectorates, co-operation, joint action and assistance for other public authorities.
The bulk of our amendments provide the statutory underpinning for the more efficient and effective joint working to which the inspectorates are committed. They do not change the existing remits of the respective inspectors, but the additional responsibilities originally provided for in the Bill no longer obtain. The amendments simply provide ways for each inspector to exercise his current functions more co-operatively and flexibly. There can be no doubt that that is a desirable aim, and it is shared by the inspectorates and the Government.
The other Government amendments in this group simply fine tune those processes. I accept that serious concerns have been expressed about the prisons inspectorate, and to a lesser extent the HMIC, but it has been accepted that the three criminal justice inspectorates could come together and work better. The Government are not aiming to pursue the enforced route originally laid out in the Bill; instead, we have listened to the inspectorates and both Houses and come up with a compromise. That compromise, which has been commended by the inspectorates involved, achieves our ultimate policy aim to secure greater working efficiencies in the five inspectorates, but in a way that is both voluntary and faster.
I urge the House to accept the Government amendments.
Mr. Garnier: The Minister is, as ever, disarming. He said that he had listened to both Houses of Parliament, but this House has not had an opportunity to say anything. My hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs (Nick Herbert) tells me that the inspectorate question was barely discussed in Committee because of the guillotine and you, Mr. Speaker, will recall that it was not reached on Report or Third Reading in this House. As a result, we had to rely on the unelected House to do our work of scrutinising the Governments policy on the inspectorate.
I am happy to say that, just the other dayon 10 Octoberthe other place defeated by 109 votes the
Governments proposal to create a mega-inspectorate. None of the speakers in that debate supported the Government, and members of the Governmentwhom I will not identifytold me in private conversation that they considered the proposals to be dreadful. They were ashamed of them and could not understand why they had been pushed through. Luckily, Lord Ramsbotham was able to have his way and persuade the other place that an independent inspectorate was essential and that the Governments proposals were wrong.
That was fine, but something else happened on 18 October. Just five minutes before the end of the time in which amendments could be tabled for the Third Reading debate in the other place, the Government tabled 20 pages of them. That is not a sensible way to construct legislation, and it is certainly not likely to convince this House of the Governments ability to produce well-thought-out proposals.
The Minister has just spoken for eight minutes, which leaves the rest of us about 10 minutes before the guillotine comes down. It is an example of the sort of constitutional outrage that the Opposition have to face. The Government appeared to concede the case put forward by Lord Ramsbotham and Lady Anelay in respect of separate inspectorates but, in a way that I consider to be cynical and intellectually and politically dishonest, at the last moment they inserted the 20 pages of amendments to which I have referred. Those amendments completely destroyed the value of the concession made by Lady Scotland on behalf of the Government.
Of course, the Government now say that there will be an independent prisons inspectorate, but those 20 pages of amendments make it clear that the chief inspector of prisons will be under ministerial direction. So they promise to give us something with one hand, but they take it away with the other and then give us only 10 minutes to complain about it.
It is utterly absurdindeed, it is worse than absurd, it is dangerousto make legislation on such an important matter in this way. I urge the Government not to treat the issue lightly. Our amendments restore, in some small measure, the independence of action and discretion of the chief inspector. Without our amendments, the Government, who have made a concession and cynically withdrawn it, will have destroyed a days work in the other place and will have undermined all that the noble Lords did. That is appalling.
I have nothing further to say, other than to express the hope that not only my right hon. and hon. Friends but Labour Members will consider carefully what they are doing. Are Labour Members prepared to allow themselves to be sucked into the Government Lobby on a false prospectus, which is designed to demonstrate that the Government are giving back to the chief inspector of prisons complete independence and discretion of action, when in fact by turning down our amendments they will be removing it?
Tony Baldry: The Minister seemed to give the House the impression that the so-called compromise, or stitch-up, had the approval of the inspectors. Does my hon. and learned Friend know the view of Lord Ramsbotham on what the Government are now proposing?
Mr. Garnier: Unfortunately, I do not because I have not had an opportunity to speak to him. However, I know what he said in the other place on 10 October; we can read in the Official Report. Lord Ramsbotham was pleading with the Ministerhe used the words I beg. This is a retired four-star general, not a man who is much in the business of begging. This is the former chief inspector of prisons, a man of great integrity and experience, yet he begged Baroness Scotland to think again. She did, but somebody got hold of her and made her think yet further, to the detriment of the Bill.
Mr. Hogg: I was a prisons Minister for two years and I placed enormous weight on the independence of the inspector of prisons. None of us has access to independent advice about the conditions in prisons, other than what comes from the prisons inspectorate. If we lose that independence, we shall all be uninformed about what is happening in prisons, which is often scandalous.
Mr. Garnier: I entirely agree with my right hon. and learned Friend. I trust that those who read the report of what little we have been able to do tonight will note his intervention and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury. Those points will inform their lordships House when they reconsider this matterif they do so.
The Government are attempting by sleight of handby procedural shenanigansto micro-manage the inspectorate. That is constitutionally wrong; it is immoral and it ought to be rejected. I urge my right hon. and hon. Friends and other people of good will to vote with us to support the amendment.
Lynne Featherstone: The proposal to merge the prisons inspectorate and create a combined inspectorate rightly caused great furore. My noble Friends in the other place made a cogent case against the proposal, which we have not been allowed to do in this place because the Government prevented debate by not allowing adequate time on Report. That was a shameful avoidance of proper scrutiny in the House. The Government are clearly without scruples about the democratic process.
Were it not for the Lords amendment, we would be faced with an unscrutinised and damaging programme for a combined, slapped-together inspectorate, steamrollered through. It is typical of the Government to try to use their brute strength of numbers rather than force of argument to get their way. Their seriously misguided proposal was, thankfully, averted, except that, as the hon. and learned Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier) said, despite the Governments apparent volte face we are now presented with a restoration of power to the Secretary of State.
It cannot be right for the Secretary of State to be able, by order, to specify the form that inspection programmes or inspection frameworks are to take. That goes against the necessary independent nature of the inspection regime and its purpose. Neither should the chief inspector have to consult the Secretary of State before preparing such a regime. Each of the amendments that changes the word shall to may puts back independence
It being Ten oclock, Mr. speaker put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair, pursuant to Order [this day].
The House proceeded to a Division; but no Member being willing to act as Teller for the Noes, Mr. Speaker declared that the Ayes had it.
Government amendment (c) agreed to.
It being after Ten oclock, Mr. Speaker put the remaining Questions required to be put at that hour.
Government amendments (d) to (f) agreed to.
Motion made, and Question put, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment, as amended. [Mr. McNulty.]
Next Section | Index | Home Page |