Police and Justice Bill

I speak on behalf of my noble friend Lord Dholakia. First, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, on powerfully representing a view that I think is shared by many of us in this Chamber. What I say will in some ways echo what he has said much more eloquently than I could do. We have returned to an aspect of the Bill which, for those involved with the work of the Prison Service and penal reform, has caused the greatest concern, confusion and dismay. We have been considering the proposition that the prisons inspectorate is the most highly acclaimed internationally of all our inspectorates, as well as being the most highly respected institution at home. It is recognised for its standards, achievements and, above all, its independence, but it is to be subsumed into an amalgam of five criminal justice inspectorates. This causes confusion and dismay because it seems to jettison such a rare and valuable resource in the name of modernisation, rationalisation, efficiency, unification, a holistic approach, and giving the public the best possible service. I am paraphrasing the words of Charles Clarke last March. That demonstrates a fundamental failure to understand the nature of the prison inspectorate, to recognise the essential and vital differences between its role and that of other inspectorates, or to see that it already represents a precious beacon of best practice. Instead, the clause proposes the diminution of everything that the inspectorate for. My parallel with what happened after the Seeborne committee and what that did to social services is not as wide of the mark as was suggested by the Minister when we debated this at Second Reading. When different departments or inspectorates are combined with notions of unification and a holistic approach, by definition it means that differences in areas of expertise become blurred. Over time these crucial differences are gradually lost. That is a tragedy. The essential difference is based on the fact that the inspectorate is looking at the treatment and condition of people who have been deprived of their liberty, which, as Dr Silvio Casale—the president of the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture—said, "““is fundamentally different from other criminal justice measures and has different legal and moral implications””." It requires specialised skills and experience, and is critically dependent on its absolute independence from government—its chief inspector coming from outside the service—so that it can criticise policy as well as practice. It can use its own criteria and methodology, rely on unannounced inspections and visit and inspect on its own terms at least twice every five years. If the clause stays part of the Bill we will be left with a very atypical, diminished element of a much larger whole. The independence, so highly prized, will be circumscribed in a variety of ways. Clause 27(8) allows Ministers to, "““specify functions, organisation and matter that should not be subject to inspection either in whole or in part””." Clause 30 allows Ministers to control the time and resources of the inspectorate by directing inspections on specific matters. Clause 30(3) states: "““In exercising any of his functions the Chief Inspector shall have regard to such aspects of government policy as the responsible ministers may direct””." That is not all, but it is among other clauses which seem to amount to the complete undermining of its independence, its ability to criticise policy as well as practice and use of its own criteria and methodology. Anne Owers has made a statement that until 2008: "““Ministers have said that they want us … to ensure that the current extent, robustness and methodology of custodial inspection is preserved and incorporated into the new … Inspectorate””." Unless these clauses are amended, I fail to see how that will be possible. Finally, I reiterate my deep concern about the future inspections of children and young people in custody. This is a still further specialised area that is treated in a specialised way within the prisons inspectorate itself. There is a specific team which deals only with YOIs, using separate criteria, a different set of expectations and a child-centred approach. Those of us who have worked with vulnerable children know that it takes great skill and specialised experience to take on this sort of work. We currently have that. Indeed, I have come to the view that where our child prisons—the STCs—are concerned, in which inspections are now carried out by CSCI because the children are so very young, it might be that the specialised team of the prisons inspectorate would be even better placed than CSCI to carry out inspections, because it understands custody as others cannot. Had STCs been inspected with such rigour and candid, open criticism of findings in the past, I wonder, in the dark watches of the night, if some of the fearful practices uncovered by the independent report of the noble Lord, Lord Carlile—strip searching, solitary confinement and restraint of children as young as 12—might have been stopped sooner and a life saved. What will be the future of this work in the brave new world of combined inspectorates? In the light of the range of arguments and depth of feeling this clause has engendered, I hope that the Government will carefully rethink its position on this amendment.