| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
I heard with pleasure the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, say today that it was the Government’s objective to strip away bureaucracy in the Bill. I also heard the noble Baroness, Lady Scotland, say that the object was to minimise additional work and that the Government remained committed to a simplified inspection landscape. I have to confess that when I read the amendments that we are discussing and saw the enormous amount of consultation that is supposed to take place—some distinguished commentators doubt that it will—I thought that this is not a simplified landscape at all, but an incredibly bureaucratic one. Perhaps the Minister will tell us what costing the Government have made of the extra bureaucrats who will be needed to carry out all this consultation and response to consultation.
I am concerned that the power of the Home Office to give directions remains very great. I hope that the Government will not seek to put back, through the ping-pong process, any power for the Crown Prosecution Service to become judge and jury in their own cases and to impose penalties and level of penalties. I hope that has gone for good, at least as far as this Bill is concerned. Whether or not that is the case, it is extremely important that the inspectorates should remain independent. I hope that that will be acknowledged.
I wish to make one or two points of detail. If we are to have a framework of consultation, we should bear in mind the fact that the Crown Prosecution Service, the whole prosecuting process and the Attorney-General are not the Government. Prosecutions are not carried out by government; they are carried out by the wholly independent prosecuting authorities. It is the absolute constitutional duty of the Attorney-General to ensure that that is the case and that it is protected. None the less, the Crown Prosecution Service must very properly work extremely closely with the police and the courts. I notice that at present there is no requirement for the Attorney-General, the DPP or anybody in the Crown
18 Oct 2006 : Column 812
I fear that we are going down a wrong road, but I know that the noble Baroness sincerely believes in what she is doing.
Baroness Quin: My Lords, having last week expressed my concern about what the Government then proposed and voted accordingly, I wish to put on record how much I welcome the statement by my noble friend the Minister this evening, for the various reasons that have been given. The proposal will ensure the co-ordination that is needed and which I understand the various inspectors have willingly committed themselves to, and yet at the same time will eliminate any danger of important, separate issues being subsumed in a reorganisation of the kind that we discussed last week.
I, too, accept that in some areas we may be talking about perception rather than reality. I certainly accept my noble friend’s assurances that there was no government agenda to weaken the inspectorates, including the prisons inspectorate. Indeed, I did not suspect that that was the Government’s motive in bringing forward the original proposals.
The noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, and thenoble Baroness who speaks for the Conservative Opposition on these issues referred to the contributions that some noble Lords on the Government Benches had made. As a new Member of your Lordships’ House, I say to my noble friend that I have not been emboldened by this experience to make me wish to repeat such rebellious behaviour regularly. I recognise that the measure that we are discussing represents a satisfactory outcome. I also recognise the efforts made by my noble friend and her colleagues in bringing about this solution.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken. I am struggling with the image evoked by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lyell of Markyate, of St Sebastian transfigured into a wicked spider, as it were. I thank the noble and learned Lord for that image, which will delight me for some time.
I hope that I shall reassure noble Lords on these matters. As regards speed, bearing in mind the nature and extent of the debates that we have had in this House, we came to the view that, if there were to be a change, it should be proposed in this House at the earliest possible opportunity. I assure your Lordships that strenuous efforts were made, first, to resolve this issue, secondly, to draft amendments that were most likely to meet the concerns that noble Lords had expressed and, thirdly, to lay those amendments as swiftly as possible. It is to that end that I sought to give notice to the Benches opposite that this was an endeavour that we were embarked on, although I was not absolutely confident about when it might come to fruition.
18 Oct 2006 : Column 813
I assure the House that I understand the difficulties that noble Lords might have in contemplating and considering the detailed amendments, but I hoped that the nature of those amendments would give noble Lords such pleasure that on this occasion—and I accept on this occasion only—I might just be forgiven for my haste. I particularly thank my noble friends, because we are once again in total charity, and it gives me pleasure to acknowledge that, particularly in relation to the noble Lord, Lord Acton. I agree with him that separation is always such dangerous sorrow.
I will now go through the issues that noble Lords have raised, and I will deal first with consultation. Your Lordships will see that all the consultees in the list are in fact the consultees who are consulted bythe five inspectorates at the moment. The long list is similar to that which was in the Bill earlier. That is why I said that technical adjustments may have to be made. We are in consultation with the five inspectorates, and we will enter into dialogue with them to refine the consultation process in an appropriate way. The direction about the form of the programmes will be about the administrative form and not about the substantive content or the form of the inspection itself.
I think that it was the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, who asked about the possible change in the well established recruitment process. I assure the noble Lord that we have no plans to change the well established recruitment process for the Chief Inspector of Prisons; we hope that similarly robust and vigorous independent-minded people will continue to inspect all our services for the foreseeable future. As I said earlier, if one looked at intent through history, one would see that that is clearly demonstrated. Given the fact that those who are seeking to recruit the new chief inspector came to entice the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, he need not fear that the brief that they were given was to find someone who was compliant. I assure him that there is anticipated to be no change.
The noble Baroness, Lady Harris, asked about the Chief Inspector of Constabulary and the requirement regarding police forces and police authorities. I hope that this will please the noble Baroness. We will expect the inspectors to consult police authorities in any event, but we can always make that a mandatory requirement by adding those bodies by order to the list of statutory consultees. As I said, we are in discussion with the inspectors about the consultation requirements.
The noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, questioned the meaning of “regular”. We are not in any way altering by these provisions the existing inspection remits of the five chief inspectors; we are simply adding strengthened and improved joint working. Matters relating to the way in which each inspectorate conducts its own existing programmes would be better addressed in the individual contexts. We are not changing that. It will still be entirely open to each inspector to determine regularity of inspections, but with the added benefit of less duplication through increased joint working.
18 Oct 2006 : Column 814
6.15 pm
The noble Baroness, Lady Harris, asked about the retention of royal warrants. It flows from what I have just said that all inspectors will retain the royal warrants, as now, and there is no change. I am surprised that the noble Baroness did not immediately appreciate that none of the existing inspectorates will have their remit extended as a result of the government amendments. Accordingly, for now, there will be no provision for the inspection of police authorities or crime and disorder reduction partnerships. We will have to return to that issue at another time.
While I know that the burden of doing so much can be high, I had hoped that my noble friend Lord Bassam had made it clear, in response to Amendment No. 2, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Harris, that, as a result of the changes that we are making in Part 4, the provision for the Audit Commission to act jointly with the inspectorate of constabulary in inspecting police authorities is removed. I know that the noble Baroness was concerned about that and I had thought that we might have heard a whoop of delight when my noble friend said that. She may not have noticed the pleasure that that statement was intended to give her—but I give it to her now.
Baroness Harris of Richmond: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister—I have a slow burn on that.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I understand that that can provide more pleasure, so I shall allow the noble Baroness to enjoy and savour the gift.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Lyell, raised the issue of the Attorney-General. I assure the noble and learned Lord that the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor, the Home Secretary, the Attorney-General and I are intimately involved in these arrangements. The Attorney-General has been appropriately consulted and will continue to be consulted. I hope that the noble Lord will be reassured by paragraph 2(2)(a) of the new schedule added by Amendment No. 18.
On the issue of increased red tape, the five inspectors will now share a joint secretariat. We hope that any consultation will involve minimal bureaucracy and that the added benefits of joint working will mean cost savings and less red tape.
Lord Lyell of Markyate: My Lords, yes, I have seen paragraph 2(2)(a) in Amendment No. 18, relating to the Crown Prosecution Service inspectorate, but my point was that the work of the Crown Prosecution Service is intimately connected with that of the police and the Courts Service and that a similar consultation requirement does not appear in relation to that.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, yes, I understand that; it is why my noble and learned friend the Attorney-General will continue to be intimately involved in this matter—he will be consulted and
18 Oct 2006 : Column 815
I hope that I have dealt with all the issues raised by noble Lords in relation to this matter and I also hope that noble Lords will agree with me that, given the interest that this House has had, it is to this place that we should properly have come to enable noble Lords to have a say in how these matters are dealt with before the Bill goes to the other place for consideration of Lords amendments. We thought that that was the better course and I had hoped that this House would have been pleased to have had such an opportunity. I join my voice to those who commended the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, on this matter. I may not always agree with him but he certainly put forward a very powerful argument.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal moved Amendments Nos. 17 to 21:
(1) In section 54 of the Police Act 1996 (c. 16) (appointment and functions of Her Majesty's Inspectors of Constabulary), after subsection (5) there is inserted-
1 (1) An inspector of constabulary may delegate any of his functions (to such extent as he may determine) to another public authority.
(2) If an inspector of constabulary delegates the carrying out of an inspection under sub-paragraph (1) it is nevertheless to be regarded for the purposes of section 54 and this Schedule as carried out by the inspector.
(3) In sub-paragraph (1) “public authority” includes any person certain of whose functions are functions of a public nature.
2 (1) The chief inspector of constabulary shall from time to time, or at such times as the Secretary of State may specify by order, prepare-
(2) Before preparing an inspection programme or an inspection framework the chief inspector of constabulary shall consult-
18 Oct 2006 : Column 816
(3) The Secretary of State may by order specify the form that inspection programmes or inspection frameworks are to take.
(4) Nothing in any inspection programme or inspection framework is to be read as preventing the inspectors of constabulary from making visits without notice.
(4) In sub-paragraph (1)(a) “specified organisation” means a person or body specified by order made by the Secretary of State.
(5) A person or body may be specified under sub-paragraph (4) only if it exercises functions in relation to any matter falling with the scope of the duties of the inspectors of constabulary under section 54 of this Act.
(6) A person or body may be specified under sub-paragraph (4) in relation to particular functions that it has.
(7) The Secretary of State may by order specify cases or circumstances in which a notice need not, or may not, be given under this paragraph.
(8) Where a notice is given under this paragraph, the proposed inspection is not to be carried out, or (as the case may be) is not to be carried out in the manner mentioned in the notice.
18 Oct 2006 : Column 817
(10) The Secretary of State may by order make provision supplementing that made by this paragraph, including in particular-
5 The inspectors of constabulary may act jointly with another public authority where it is appropriate to do so for the efficient and effective discharge of their functions.
6 (1) The chief inspector of constabulary may if he thinks it appropriate to do so provide assistance to any other public authority for the purpose of the exercise by that authority of its functions.
(2) Assistance under this paragraph may be provided on such terms (including terms as to payment) as the chief inspector of constabulary thinks fit.
7 A statutory instrument containing an order under this Schedule shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.””
(1) In section 2 of the Crown Prosecution Service Inspectorate Act 2000 (c. 10) (functions of Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of the Crown Prosecution Service), after subsection (4) there is inserted-
“(5) The Schedule to this Act (which makes further provision about the Chief Inspector) has effect.”
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |