Clause 46 - Functions of Chief Inspector

Justice (Northern Ireland) Bill – in a Public Bill Committee at 9:30 am on 7 February 2002.

Alert me about debates like this

Photo of Mr Seamus Mallon Mr Seamus Mallon Social Democratic and Labour Party, Newry and Armagh 9:30, 7 February 2002

I beg to move amendment No. 290, in page 26, line 15, after 'inspections', insert

'of the efficiency and effectiveness'.

This addition would make it clear that the role of the chief inspector of criminal justice was to inspect the various criminal justice agencies to ensure that they carried out their functions efficiently and effectively. As it stands, the Bill is somewhat vague about the inspector's role and about the inspections that he should carry out. The amendment would establish parameters within which he could carry out his functions, and similar parameters define the role of other inspectorates. For example, section 41(2) of the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 1998 empowers Her Majesty's inspectorate of constabulary to inspect and report on the efficiency and effectiveness of the Police Service of Northern Ireland. The amendment would tidy the clause up and give it more focus.

Photo of Des Browne Des Browne Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Northern Ireland Office, Parliamentary Secretary (Northern Ireland Office)

I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) for moving what I believe is intended to be a helpful amendment. However, although the sentiments behind it are entirely consistent with the review, it could have unfortunate unintended consequences.

One of the chief inspector's responsibilities is to inspect the Prison Service, but prescribing his role in the way set out in the amendment would prevent him from reporting on the condition and treatment of prisoners and children who were detained in juvenile justice centres or secure accommodation. That is just one example, but I am concerned that the range of bodies to be inspected is such that there may be others.

We must ensure that we do not inadvertently preclude the chief inspector from properly carrying out his functions in relation to all the bodies on the list. I would, therefore, be grateful if my hon. Friend would withdraw the amendment.

Photo of John Hayes John Hayes Opposition Pairing Whip (Commons)

On a point of order, Mr. Conway. I am sorry to interrupt the Committee's proceedings, but when we last met there was an unfortunate exchange between the Minister and my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt)—you were not in the Chair, although I know that you follow proceedings with

almost legendary diligence. The Minister made allegations about what my hon. Friend had said, and the wiser members of the Committee agreed that my hon. Friend should withdraw his remarks if the record bore out those allegations and that the Minister should do likewise if it did not. I was waiting for the Minister to speak, in the hope that he would withdraw his allegations.

The Minister also made remarks about the possible accuracy of the record:

''I will of course read the record. However, I heard what I heard, and words on the page do not always bear the implications that they clearly bore''.—[Official Report, Standing Committee F, 5 February 2002; c. 227.]

That rather casts doubt on the writers of the Official Report, which is unfortunate and something which I think the Minister will regret.

I know that the Minister is a reasonable and fair man, and that a reasonable and fair spirit has allowed the Committee to be productive. He has now had a chance to read the record, and, with your indulgence Mr. Conway, I simply wanted to give him the opportunity to put matters straight so that we could return to the equanimity and happy state that we previously enjoyed and which I hope that we shall enjoy again.

Photo of Derek Conway Derek Conway Conservative, Old Bexley and Sidcup

I read the Hansard of the sittings that I do not chair, to make sure that my co-chairmen and I are at least ploughing the same furrow—an unusual thought. The Committee seemed to be getting interestingly frisky towards the end of the last sitting. As far as I can see, the difficulty occurred in columns 226 and 227, with the word ''pejorative''. However, I took the precaution of going to the Library to check the Oxford English Dictionary, and I found that the word was not unparliamentary. It is not a word that the Minister could be required to withdraw. It may be considered hurtful, but it is not considered unparliamentary.

With regard to the Minister's observations on the Official Report, I am not sure that it was his intention to question it. That is not how I interpreted them, but if I misunderstood, I am sure that the Minister will put me right. I consider that I have no cause to require the Minister to withdraw anything he said. He may wish to add some remarks on a point of order, which I would take, but I have no grounds for requiring him to withdraw any remarks he made in columns 226 and 227.

Photo of John Hayes John Hayes Opposition Pairing Whip (Commons)

Further to that point of order, Mr. Conway. I will not detain the Committee for very long. I accept entirely what you said about the Minister not needing to withdraw remarks in the parliamentary sense. However, given the way that the Minister has conducted himself in the Committee thus far, and the positive and constructive atmosphere that has prevailed, I felt it was appropriate at this juncture to smooth things over. I hope that it is possible, without resort to the formal procedure of withdrawing remarks, to satisfy my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate that his honour and integrity have not been brought into question by the Minister.

Photo of Des Browne Des Browne Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Northern Ireland Office, Parliamentary Secretary (Northern Ireland Office)

Further to that point of order, Mr. Conway. If I say a few words we may be able to move on from the matter in the spirit described by the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes). I accept and recognise his description of the way that the Committee has conducted its affairs up to now. There is no question that the temperature of discussion was raised in the context referred to by the hon. Gentleman.

I have read the words that were said. You were correct to point out, Mr. Conway, that there was no suggestion that the Official Report would not properly record what had been said. Having read the words, and without requiring anybody to get into interpretations, definitions or descriptions, I am happy to put on the record that I accept that the hon. Member for Reigate did not intend that the words he used should have the meaning that I ascribed to them.

At that time, I considered the hon. Gentleman's words, in the wider context of what was going on in Northern Ireland, to be particularly unfortunate and capable of being so interpreted. However, I am happy to accept that the hon. Gentleman did not intend that. If these words restore the honour of the hon. Member for Reigate to the extent that it may have been taken away by something that I said, I hope that we can leave the record as it is without withdrawing anybody's remarks.

Photo of Derek Conway Derek Conway Conservative, Old Bexley and Sidcup

I am grateful to the Minister and the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings for clarifying that matter. Committees do, from time to time, become excitable, and that is perfectly understandable. However, the consideration of the Bill has in general been reasoned, so let us hope that we can proceed on that basis.

Photo of Crispin Blunt Crispin Blunt Shadow Spokesperson (Northern Ireland)

On a point of order, Mr. Conway. To bring the matter to a conclusion, I am grateful for the Minister's remarks. I will go on accepting entirely what he says, and I hope that he will continue to accord me the same privilege.

Photo of Derek Conway Derek Conway Conservative, Old Bexley and Sidcup

We can now return to the Minister's contribution.

Photo of Des Browne Des Browne Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Northern Ireland Office, Parliamentary Secretary (Northern Ireland Office)

I had only one sentence left to deliver, but it may turn into two or three now. I was requesting that my hon. Friend the Member for Newry and Armagh withdraw his amendment. However, I was also offering him the opportunity to continue his debate with me, either in the Committee or outside it, between now and the remaining stages of the Bill's passage. I would like to find out whether he can persuade me that what I fear would be the unintended consequences of his amendment would not, in reality, occur.

Photo of Mr Seamus Mallon Mr Seamus Mallon Social Democratic and Labour Party, Newry and Armagh

I thank the Minister for his contribution. If he would suggest what some of the unfortunate consequences might be, it would help me to decide whether to pursue the matter.

Photo of Des Browne Des Browne Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Northern Ireland Office, Parliamentary Secretary (Northern Ireland Office)

I am anxious to curtail the debate, which is on comparatively narrow matters, but I will make a further contribution. In my short remarks, I

suggested that the amendment would prescribe the inspector's role. I gave the example of the reporting of conditions and treatment of prisoners or children detained in juvenile justice centres or secure accommodation following an inspection by the Prison Service. I also suggested that there might be other examples due to the extensive nature and diversity of the bodies, but that that example was sufficient for me because it involved children. I hope that that helps my hon. Friend.

Photo of Mr Seamus Mallon Mr Seamus Mallon Social Democratic and Labour Party, Newry and Armagh

I thank the Minister. I know of his interest in the Bill's dealings with young people, and that his concern is genuine. I am not convinced that the words ''efficiency and effectiveness'' would have detrimental consequences, but I want to have further discussions with the Minister, so I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Photo of Patsy Calton Patsy Calton Liberal Democrat, Cheadle

I beg to move amendment No. 157, in page 26, line 31, leave out 'must not' and insert 'may choose not to'.

Photo of Derek Conway Derek Conway Conservative, Old Bexley and Sidcup

With this we may discuss amendment No. 289, in page 26, line 31, leave out 'must' and insert 'need'.

Photo of Patsy Calton Patsy Calton Liberal Democrat, Cheadle

I was interested in the previous amendment, and was concerned that it might reduce the abilities and powers of the chief inspector. Amendments Nos. 157 and 158 are intended to probe the Minister on the powers of the inspector. We want to find out exactly how the Government envisage his role, as there seems to be some confusion as to how he should carry out his duties.

The inspector's function should be either to consider strategically all the organisations listed in subsection (1)—to do so properly, he would need the ability to investigate them all as he saw fit—or, as is suggested under amendment No. 158, to investigate only those matters that have been brought to his attention. Such matters are likely to come from individual cases, so he would need to be able to investigate such cases. The two amendments stand together.

The chief inspector's hands seem to be tied. As a matter of course, he cannot investigate all organisations listed in subsection (1) as he sees fit, and he cannot investigate in individual cases.

Photo of Derek Conway Derek Conway Conservative, Old Bexley and Sidcup

The hon. Lady referred to amendment No. 158, in clause 47, page 27, line 28, leave out subsection (a), and I will happily add that amendment to the group for ease of debate. I trust that the Committee is content with that.

Photo of Mr Seamus Mallon Mr Seamus Mallon Social Democratic and Labour Party, Newry and Armagh

I fully support the amendment. Amendment No. 289, which I tabled, attempts to achieve the same purpose. Amendment No. 157 is probably better, and I support it because although it is essential that the role of chief inspector be defined, he must at least have the opportunity to examine issues and should not be tied by the absolute term ''must.'' The wording of the amendment ensures that. It should be considered in conjunction with amendment No.

158, which in many ways is consequential on it. I recognise the good reasons for the Liberal Democrat amendment, and I support it.

Photo of Des Browne Des Browne Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Northern Ireland Office, Parliamentary Secretary (Northern Ireland Office)

In amendments Nos. 157 and 289, hon. Members seem to want to give the inspector the discretion to inspect an organisation even if the inspector is satisfied that it is adequately inspected already. In the Government's view, the criminal justice agencies in Northern Ireland should not be overburdened with unnecessary bureaucracy. Nothing more should be imposed on an organisation that is being inspected already. Therefore, I ask the hon. Member for Cheadle (Mrs. Calton) to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment No. 158 would remove subsection (a) of clause 47, which would remove the bar on inspecting individual cases. In our opinion, the review did not intend to confer on the inspectorate the power to inspect and review individual cases. That would profoundly change the nature of the organisation.

Photo of Patsy Calton Patsy Calton Liberal Democrat, Cheadle 9:45, 7 February 2002

Removing the ability to investigate individual organisations might mean that an inspector could not investigate in the round, as he may want to. Without that ability, he might not be able to access information or make clear information that would be germane to any case that he made in the round.

Photo of Des Browne Des Browne Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Northern Ireland Office, Parliamentary Secretary (Northern Ireland Office)

I accept the hon. Lady's point that the inspector may not be able to inspect regimes, such as that involved in the detention of children, without considering the circumstances of individual cases. However, in my view, the Bill does not preclude the inspector from considering actual cases—I use that phrase advisedly—as opposed as individual cases. He can consider actual cases, which may be sampled at random, to examine the operation of a system in practice. Giving him the power to inspect individual cases would have profound implications for, and profoundly change the nature of, the institution that we want to construct.

The review framed its recommendations on the inspectorate so as to ensure good systems and cost-effectiveness, as my hon. Friend the Member for Newry and Armagh emphasised in the discussion on an earlier amendment. There is a clear distinction between this type of inspection and a complaints authority's or ombudsman's function. That distinction is widely recognised and practised by other inspectorates. For example, separate bodies in England and Wales deal with the inspections of the police and complaints against them in individual cases. That regime will exist in Northern Ireland, too.

I am sure that the hon. Member for Cheadle did not intend some of the more far-reaching consequences of the amendment. If she were suggesting, for example, that the inspectorate should be able to review controversial prosecutions as individual cases, that would make for a different debate. However, I suspect that she is not suggesting that, and that those who support her amendment are not either. That would contradict the review's recommendations on an

independent prosecution service, for example. The inspector already has a challenging role to ensure appropriate standards within the system and that the system works effectively, so that organisations provide best value. It would not be helpful to expand the role of the inspector into this area, which in any event is not his business, so I urge the hon. Lady to withdraw the amendment.

Photo of Crispin Blunt Crispin Blunt Shadow Spokesperson (Northern Ireland)

I strongly support the Minister in resisting all the amendments. The first amendment tabled by the hon. Lady would result in a lack of clarity in the inspection regime, and the possibility of being liable to inspection by two organisations should be resisted. If it is clear to the inspector that an inspection has been adequately carried out by another organisation, his duty should be as in the Bill, which requires that he ''must not carry out'' a further inspection. That position will be clear to organisations that are being inspected. An inspection is a testing time for any organisation, and its exposure should be minimised to that which is necessary.

Amendment No. 158, which would allow inspections into individual cases, could be thoroughly pernicious, particularly in the case of the Director of Public Prosecutions. The inspectorate should restrict its role to that of general inspections. Allowing individual inspections would lead the inspectorate into areas which the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh was attempting to resist in his previous amendment by making it clear that inspections should be for the sake of ''efficiency and effectiveness''. Sometimes individual cases should be reviewed, and it may be appropriate for people to appeal if they think that they have been on the receiving end of injustice. It should not be for the chief inspector of criminal justice to act as the board of appeal in such cases, which is what the hon. Lady's amendment would lead to, although I am sure that that is not her intention. It should be clear to individuals what their line of appeal should be, and that should not be to the chief inspector.

Photo of Mr Seamus Mallon Mr Seamus Mallon Social Democratic and Labour Party, Newry and Armagh

There was no intention on my part to create a situation in which the chief inspector could surf through the areas suggested by the hon. Member for Reigate. However, an urgent issue of public concern could arise in which the inspector might consider that an inspection was justified, even though the agency had already been inspected by another inspectorate. If the inspector cannot make such a judgment, he will be in a weak and difficult position.

Photo of Mr Seamus Mallon Mr Seamus Mallon Social Democratic and Labour Party, Newry and Armagh

I take the Minister's point. However, I do not believe that changing the wording from ''must'' to ''need'' would have the detrimental effect that is envisaged. It makes good sense.

Photo of Patsy Calton Patsy Calton Liberal Democrat, Cheadle

I shall deal with the last point first. It could be argued that the phrase ''must not carry out inspections'' may lead to a situation in which the chief inspector may not consider a matter that gives him cause for concern. In such circumstances, some of the sense of these amendments is needed. I accept the

Minister's assertion that it is not the intention—it is not our intention, either—to insist that the chief inspector should re-examine individual cases that have been adequately inspected. However, the inspector might have cause for concern, and subsection (2) might be used to argue that he has no jurisdiction because adequate arrangements are already in place. Arrangements may be adequate in the round, but may not be adequate in relation to an individual case on which the inspector's hands will be tied.

The Minister's distinction between actual and individual cases left me somewhat confused. I dare say that it has some legal meaning, but it escapes me, and I should be grateful for some further explanation. If I understood the distinction, I might agree with the Minister.

Photo of Des Browne Des Browne Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Northern Ireland Office, Parliamentary Secretary (Northern Ireland Office)

If it is of any help to the Committee, the distinction was between anonymised cases--which may be helpful to the inspector in working through a regime--and individual cases that refer to a particular personality, which we are trying to avoid.

Photo of Patsy Calton Patsy Calton Liberal Democrat, Cheadle

I am happy to accept that explanation, but I still believe that either one of the amendments to subsection (2)—amendment No. 157 or amendment No. 289—should be accepted to give the chief inspector some flexibility to reconsider cases if he deems it appropriate.

Photo of Derek Conway Derek Conway Conservative, Old Bexley and Sidcup

Order. So that I can be clear about the hon. Lady's intentions, does she seek leave to withdraw amendment No. 157 or to divide the Committee? If she seeks to withdraw the amendment, we can still proceed to a Division on amendments Nos. 289 and 158, if that is the wish of other hon. Members.

Photo of Patsy Calton Patsy Calton Liberal Democrat, Cheadle

I think that we should go ahead with amendment No. 157.

Question put, That the amendment be made: —

The Committee divided: Ayes 3, Noes 17.

Division number 14 Adults Abused in Childhood — Clause 46 - Functions of Chief Inspector

Aye: 3 MPs

No: 17 MPs

Aye: A-Z by last name

No: A-Z by last name

Question accordingly negatived.

Photo of Sylvia Hermon Sylvia Hermon Shadow Spokesperson (Women), Shadow Spokesperson (Trade and Industry), Shadow Spokesperson (Home Affairs)

I beg to move amendment No. 189, in page 27, line 5, at end insert—

'(6A)No order shall be made under subsection (6) above unless the Secretary of State has consulted the Chief Inspector of Criminal Justice.'

It is nice to be able to welcome you back to the Chair this morning, Mr. Conway.

The amendment would oblige the Secretary of State to consult the chief inspector of criminal justice before making an order that added, subtracted or otherwise altered the list of organisations set out in subsection (1)(a) to (d). I consider it appropriate that the Secretary of State should have the confidence and support of the chief inspector when he makes such changes. In that context, I draw the Committee's attention to clause 47(7), which states:

''The Secretary of State may require the Chief Inspector to provide advice in relation to an organisation specified in section 46.

If the Minister can confirm that the word ''advice'' includes consultation with the Secretary of State when he wants to alter, add or omit an organisation from the list in clause 46(1), I shall be happy to withdraw the amendment.

Photo of Des Browne Des Browne Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Northern Ireland Office, Parliamentary Secretary (Northern Ireland Office) 10:00, 7 February 2002

The hon. Lady's amendment is again intended to be helpful. The Government would expect the consultation that she seeks to enshrine in statute to take place in any event. I cannot imagine the relationship between the Secretary of State and the chief inspector being such that consultation would not take place during their normal communications if the Secretary of State proposed to deploy the powers given him under subsection (6).

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her suggestion, but it is not necessary. My understanding of the word ''advice'' in clause 47 is that it is not intended to be used for the purpose that she suggests. I would be misleading her if I said that it was a catch-all provision. It would not properly include such consultation. The Government anticipate that the Secretary of State will consult the chief inspector. Who better could he go to for advice on whether or not an organisation should be included in the list of those to be inspected? With respect, it is not necessary to put such a provision in the Bill. With that reassurance, I ask the hon. Lady to withdraw the amendment.

Photo of Sylvia Hermon Sylvia Hermon Shadow Spokesperson (Women), Shadow Spokesperson (Trade and Industry), Shadow Spokesperson (Home Affairs)

I thank the Minister for that explanation. May I tease out a little more information? What is meant by the word ''advice'' in clause 47(7)? Does it include consultation in relation to those organisations listed in clause 46?

Photo of Des Browne Des Browne Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Northern Ireland Office, Parliamentary Secretary (Northern Ireland Office)

This provision is included because it is envisaged that, over time, the chief inspector will become the repository of a significant amount of information and knowledge about the organisations that he or she inspects. It seems sensible that the Executive officer—in this case, the Secretary of State—should require such a repository of information to give him advice on a range of matters.

Photo of Sylvia Hermon Sylvia Hermon Shadow Spokesperson (Women), Shadow Spokesperson (Trade and Industry), Shadow Spokesperson (Home Affairs)

I am perfectly happy with that explanation. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Photo of Crispin Blunt Crispin Blunt Shadow Spokesperson (Northern Ireland)

I want to make a brief inquiry, to assist me and other members of the Committee. My question could be asked under any of the clauses setting up the chief inspectorate of criminal justice. When the new institutions are set up, it may be necessary--this may have been overlooked--for them to be listed under schedules 2 or 3 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 as reserved or excepted matters. Is clarification required in the Bill with regard to the chief inspectorate? Judicial appointments are excepted matters and the criminal law is a reserved matter, but the chief inspectorate sits between the two.

Photo of Des Browne Des Browne Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Northern Ireland Office, Parliamentary Secretary (Northern Ireland Office)

I think the answer is that the chief inspector falls within provisions covering criminal justice in schedule 3. If the hon. Gentleman is content with that explanation concerning the chief inspectorate, perhaps we could revisit the matter in relation to other institutions as we proceed.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 46 ordered to stand part of the Bill.