Police and Justice Bill

The Minister is, as ever, disarming. He said that he had listened to both Houses of Parliament, but this House has not had an opportunity to say anything. My hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs (Nick Herbert) tells me that the inspectorate question was barely discussed in Committee because of the guillotine and you, Mr. Speaker, will recall that it was not reached on Report or Third Reading in this House. As a result, we had to rely on the unelected House to do our work of scrutinising the Government’s policy on the inspectorate. I am happy to say that, just the other day—on 10 October—the other place defeated by 109 votes the Government’s proposal to create a mega-inspectorate. None of the speakers in that debate supported the Government, and members of the Government—whom I will not identify—told me in private conversation that they considered the proposals to be dreadful. They were ashamed of them and could not understand why they had been pushed through. Luckily, Lord Ramsbotham was able to have his way and persuade the other place that an independent inspectorate was essential and that the Government’s proposals were wrong. That was fine, but something else happened on 18 October. Just five minutes before the end of the time in which amendments could be tabled for the Third Reading debate in the other place, the Government tabled 20 pages of them. That is not a sensible way to construct legislation, and it is certainly not likely to convince this House of the Government’s ability to produce well-thought-out proposals. The Minister has just spoken for eight minutes, which leaves the rest of us about 10 minutes before the guillotine comes down. It is an example of the sort of constitutional outrage that the Opposition have to face. The Government appeared to concede the case put forward by Lord Ramsbotham and Lady Anelay in respect of separate inspectorates but, in a way that I consider to be cynical and intellectually and politically dishonest, at the last moment they inserted the 20 pages of amendments to which I have referred. Those amendments completely destroyed the value of the concession made by Lady Scotland on behalf of the Government. Of course, the Government now say that there will be an independent prisons inspectorate, but those 20 pages of amendments make it clear that the chief inspector of prisons will be under ministerial direction. So they promise to give us something with one hand, but they take it away with the other and then give us only 10 minutes to complain about it. It is utterly absurd—indeed, it is worse than absurd, it is dangerous—to make legislation on such an important matter in this way. I urge the Government not to treat the issue lightly. Our amendments restore, in some small measure, the independence of action and discretion of the chief inspector. Without our amendments, the Government, who have made a concession and cynically withdrawn it, will have destroyed a day’s work in the other place and will have undermined all that the noble Lords did. That is appalling. I have nothing further to say, other than to express the hope that not only my right hon. and hon. Friends but Labour Members will consider carefully what they are doing. Are Labour Members prepared to allow themselves to be sucked into the Government Lobby on a false prospectus, which is designed to demonstrate that the Government are giving back to the chief inspector of prisons complete independence and discretion of action, when in fact by turning down our amendments they will be removing it?