| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I invite the noble Baroness to consider that she is extending the range of consideration and debate on this point. We cannot afford for these individuals to be at large within the community. Of course, we are bringing forward other proposals precisely to deal with the kind of problem to which the noble Baroness refers. This amendment seeks to ensure that dangerous offenders who are at liberty are protected and that the public are protected as well. Providing accommodation for them in a hostel is designed to do that. I hope that that answers the point. Clearly it is important that they are in supervised accommodation. I believe that the original amendment tabled by the noble Baroness arose from her misunderstanding these matters. We have clarified that and we need to focus on the amendment rather than the other issues that the noble Baroness has brought in, understandable though those concerns are.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I do not know whether I am in order, but with the leave of the House perhaps I can say that that does not answer my point. The hostel staff have listened to the debates. So far they have been dismayed and they will be dismayed further. I hope that the Minister will write to the staff and give them an assurance.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 15 to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason numbered 15A.
Moved, That the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 15 to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason numbered 15A.--(Lord Bassam of Brighton.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do not insist on its Amendment No. 25 to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason numbered 25A.
The amendment made by your Lordships is unnecessary because in the light of the result of consultation the Government do not intend to appoint a joint chief inspector for prisons and probation. It is not envisaged that any such appointment would be made without seeking the approval of the House in some form.
I fully understand the concerns that have been expressed in this House and elsewhere about the possibility that the posts of Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Prisons and Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Probation might be combined. We said that we would consider carefully the results of the consultation exercise, which we announced on 27th July and which concluded on 31st October, before reaching any decision about making a combined appointment. On 14th November I announced in a Written Answer to a Question from the noble Lord, Lord Orme, what the findings of the consultation exercise had been. It may be helpful to this House if I summarise them again. Full copies of all responses received have been laid in the Library.
The consultation exercise ended on 31st October. A majority of those consulted favoured some change, establishing terms of reference for the inspection of joint working between the criminal justice agencies and the sharing of inspectors between the inspectorates. In contrast, only small minorities were in favour of the status quo or of the appointment of a joint chief inspector for prisons and probation.
During the consultation exercise a helpful scheme was put forward by HM Chief Inspectors of Constabulary, the Crown Prosecution Service, magistrates' courts, and the Probation and Prison Services to inspect practice across their boundaries systematically. That scheme has much to recommend it and the consultation exercise also suggests that it will command broad support. It is therefore the option that we propose to pursue along with the arrangements canvassed in the consultation exercise for bringing the work of the inspectorates closer together.
That is a brief explanation of our position. But I hope the House will agree, following our full and open consultation exercise, and the fact that we listened carefully to the views put forward both in response to consultation and in your Lordships' House, that we have fairly moved forward.
Moved, That the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 25 to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason numbered 25A.--(Lord Bassam of Brighton.)
Lord Windlesham: My Lords, as I was the mover of the amendment which was carried on Report in this House, perhaps I may comment on the decision in another place.
It comes as a great relief. The Home Secretary has given two reasons for his change of heart. The noble Lord, Lord Bassam, explained that the consultation process, which was due to end on 31st October, showed overwhelmingly that there was little support for the idea of a joint inspectorate of prisons and probation. It is good to know that the results of the consultation paper, which were not expected anything like so early, have been brought forward and that the views of those who were consulted were broadly in line with those expressed in your Lordships' House.
The second reason given by the Home Secretary, who spoke when this matter was debated on 14th November in the House of Commons, was that during the consultation exercise a helpful scheme was suggested by Her Majesty's Chief Inspectors of Constabulary, the Crown Prosecution Service, magistrates' courts, and the Probation and Prison Services, to inspect the practice across their boundaries systematically. Again, that reflects current practice. It is highly desirable that there should be joint inspectorates. Sir David Ramsbotham has said that repeatedly and there have been a number of joint inspections within the Prison Service in recent years. That was mentioned in our own debates.
Therefore, welcome though that response is, it is no change whatever. It was good to hear it repeated by the Home Secretary as the second reason he gave. He had the generosity to say that strong opinions had been expressed in this House. But naturally, in the more adversarial setting of the House of Commons, he did not want there to be any hint of a climbdown so those were the reasons given. Nevertheless, this is a substantial improvement. It is fair to say that there are still concerns in the Probation Service--my noble friend Lady Blatch may have something to say about that--so it is by no means a perfect outcome. However, it is a great relief compared with what might have been and what was in the Bill as it stood before the action taken by your Lordships' House.
Lord Elton: My Lords, as a Minister formerly responsible at one stage both for the Prison Service Inspectorate and for the Probation Inspectorate, I echo what my noble friend Lord Windlesham said about the great relief felt in both services and by those who had knowledge of them at the decision the Government have taken, whatever reasons they give for it.
I pay tribute to the initiative of my noble friend Lord Windlesham for resisting the provision and thank him for his contribution in persuading the Government of what is a far better policy than that on which they originally embarked.
The Lord Bishop of Lichfield: My Lords, from these Benches I repeat our relief at the outcome. The original suggestion was widely resisted by probation officers, which is why the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Lincoln, who is bishop to prisons, has been involved in the progress of this Bill.
We certainly need to tackle crime. But we believe that is best done by working with young people to give them a sense of belonging to society and by strengthening their values and moral sense. That is best done, wherever possible, outside prisons. Therefore I speak on behalf of the integrity of the Probation Service in its own right and without seeing it as part of the prison establishment.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I echo the words of the right reverend Prelate. The integrity of each service is important, and the Government have gone a long way to see that that will be established from the top.
Nevertheless, no doubt we shall all reserve judgment until we have seen the final document which will set out the practical details of how the inspection service will work, co-operatively where it makes sense, but distinctly where it is important that they are, although within the criminal justice system, distinct services pursuing different practices. We shall therefore wait for the final document. However, on behalf of the services, and on behalf of my noble friend Lord Windlesham who has worked so hard on this, I accept the improvements made so far.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
LORDS AMENDMENT
15Clause 5, page 3, line 25, leave out ("at any time")
The Commons disagreed to this amendment for the following reason--
15ABecause the Commons believe that it is appropriate to restrict in the manner proposed the category of person for whom the service in question may be provided under arrangements made by local probation boards.
LORDS AMENDMENT
25Clause 7, 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 Commons disagreed to this amendment for the following reason--
25A
Because the Commons believe that it is unnecessary to impose the proposed restriction on the power to give directions.
4 p.m.
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page