UK Parliament / Open data

Police and Justice Bill

The way in which it will work is that the inspectorate will be able to identify the inspectors who seamlessly carry out this work, who will continue to be employed, because we recognise the importance of maintaining a seamless continuity in this high-risk area. We shall stage the transition of the new inspectorate and not abolish the Chief Inspector of Prisons until we are satisfied that the new chief inspector is ready effectively to carry out the prisons inspection duty. So the calibre of the inspectors who are employed to do this work in partnership with the chief inspector will not change. We shall still need inspectors who specialise in prisons, the CPS, courts and police; that is not going to change. But the person who organises that and is the bridge that brings it all together will be one person instead of four. So the unity that we need to reflect the changes that we are making in the criminal justice system will be there. But the important thing is that what the inspectorate actually does—the independence and the rigour and vigour of the current prison inspectorate—should not be diminished. It should be enhanced. That is our aspiration. Of course, it will be possible to provide for the justice inspectorate to inspect offender management from end to end, including the custody element, and still leave the prisons inspectorate to inspect the treatment and conditions of prisons as a separate issue. But that carries a substantial risk of duplication and conflicting recommendations, and the implementation of the National Offender Management Service brings a new focus on reducing reoffending within the context of close working between prisons, probation and other government departments and the voluntary and civic sector. So while inspection of the treatment and conditions of those in custody is an important element that should be preserved, a single chief inspector will be a far more powerful voice for change than two inspectors concentrating on different aspects of systems involved in reducing reoffending and public protection. Above all, the single inspectorate will be able to follow the way in which offenders are managed before, during and after imprisonment as a complete process, more easily spotting any gaps or weaknesses in the system, and making recommendations to address them to the agency concerned—which will inure to the benefit of everyone. It will therefore be a stronger, more flexible means of ensuring that the criminal justice system works in a joined-up way from start to finish than the present fragmented system. I hope I have been able to assure Members on all sides of the Committee that the new inspectorate will be every bit as independent as the existing prisons inspectorate; that it will have the same latitude of freedoms to challenge the policies of the Government of the day, and that it will be as focused as our current chief inspector, Anne Owers, and her predecessors in protecting the human rights of prisoners. I stress again that the justice inspectorate will be able to set its own inspection criteria, undertake unannounced inspections and decide the frequency of inspections for itself. None of that will change. I know many noble Lords, not least the noble Baroness, Lady Stern, want to see some or all of these safeguards in the Bill, a point well made by the Joint Committee on Human Rights. I give no absolute undertaking now on all six put forward by the JCHR, but if the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, will agree to withdraw his amendment, we can use the summer break to look at its proposals in more detail. I would hope and expect to come forward with some government amendments on Report to address the concerns that have been raised.
Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
684 c461-2 
Session
2005-06
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
Back to top