Our debates on the Bill have been good natured, especially in Committee, and some interesting amendments were proposed. Unfortunately, the Government took none of them on board, although I have to correct the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Nick Herbert) in one respect. The former Minister produced the same version of our amendment on computer hacking but it was very cold comfort in a Bill that will give the Home Secretary the biggest ever centralisation of power over the police.
Why were the Labour Government so unmoving on provisions that were eminently sensible and obvious to the Liberal Democrats and the Conservatives? With their complete centralisation of power, the Government seem to be getting tenser and tenser. Their grip on control is the result of fear. It has nothing to do with winning the arguments; it is fear of headlines. They need to legislate and intervene—to be seen to be active—rather than really getting to the bottom of a problem, or allowing the democratic processes of accountability and the police to do their job properly. There is a complete undermining of professional opinion and practice, which will spiral down and bring less effective and less local policing.
I object strongly to the doublespeak that the measure is about localism and local policing. In fact, it will bring a sweeping centralisation of power, such as we have never seen.
It is a great tragedy that we did not have time to debate the inspectorates. The changes to the prison inspectorate hold dangers for prisoners in future. That inspectorate casts a light where no light shines through its expertise and independence, both of which will be compromised in a joint inspectorate. The chief inspector of prisons, Anne Owers, said that it would be a dilution of all the special protection for prisoners. Well trained prison inspectors can spot human rights abuses in a way that will not be possible if the inspectorates are merged. I am sorry that we did not have time to discuss a joint amendment to provide that prisons were not included. Prisoners need special arrangements to protect them.
Sadly, we are now dependent on the other place put into the Bill all the proposals that the Government would not accept—amendment after amendment. Although the debate has been informative and interesting, it has not been at all rewarding for Liberal Democrats. We tried to work with the Government but all our good work and good intentions were rejected, so it is with a heavy heart that I leave it to the other place to make amends.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.
Police and Justice Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Baroness Featherstone
(Liberal Democrat)
in the House of Commons on Wednesday, 10 May 2006.
It occurred during Debate on bills on Police and Justice Bill.
About this proceeding contribution
Reference
446 c434-5 Session
2005-06Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamberSubjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2024-04-21 21:53:05 +0100
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_322570
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_322570
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_322570