The point of the example and the clause is to make it clear that, occasionally, it is in the public interest and necessary for the Secretary of State to be able to respond to an incident, which was unforeseen and presents great public concern, with a swift sending in of independent expertise that can report on what has happened within a short time.

Clearly, the generality of the clause is about giving the commissioner the power that the current prisons and probation ombudsman has to investigate complaints and deaths. Perhaps a better example than Yarl’s Wood, where deaths did occur, is a case involving a near-death. There have been several cases of people attempting suicide, not dying and not necessarily making a complaint—Indeed, some might not have recovered consciousness and could not make a complaint. The ombudsman can only investigate complaints from individuals within the custody setting, and deaths. There are circumstances in which the Secretary of State might want to ask him to investigate matters that are not technically within his remit, but which he has the expertise to investigate and on which  he could produce a good, swift, independent report. The arrangements already exist; we are just putting them into statute. There is no question in this part of the remit of the Secretary of State telling the commissioner what to say or what not to look at, because the commissioner will be determining the scope and the way in which he carries out the investigation into what he has been asked to investigate.

The issue here is about matters that are partially out of the commissioner’s remit—that do not involve deaths or complaints—that the Secretary of State would like him to look at. The Secretary of State will consult him first and then ask him to take a look. He will be able to get on with his usual job, independently and will himself determine how to proceed. He will then write a report, which will be published. The sinister interpretation made by Opposition Members is not the intention or the import of the Bill. I hope that the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome accepts that.

We do not seek to enable the Secretary of State to fetter what the commissioner would say in these circumstances. Rather, there will be a proper consultation about the technical possibility of doing an investigation that the Secretary of State might, on an ad hoc basis, wish the commissioner to look at. That would be done swiftly, and the commissioner would then get on and do the job. There is no more to it that that. I hope that that persuades the hon. Gentleman—we will find out soon whether it does.