Offender Management Bill

moved Amendment No. 5: 5: Clause 1, page 1, line 6, leave out paragraphs (a) to (f) and insert— ““(a) the reduction of crime through working in partnership with appropriate public, private and voluntary sector organisations at local level; (b) courts to be given assistance in determining the appropriate sentences to pass, and making other decisions, in respect of persons charged with or convicted of offences; (c) authorised persons to be given assistance in determining whether conditional cautions should be given and which conditions to attach to conditional cautions; (d) the supervision and rehabilitation of persons charged with or convicted of offences, including those released from prison; (e) the supervision and rehabilitation of persons to whom conditional cautions are given; (f) measures to ensure compliance with court orders; (g) measures to ensure offenders’ awareness of the effect of crime on victims, both generally and in relation to their specific offence; and (h) the giving of information and advice to victims of persons charged with or convicted of offences.”” The noble Lord said: My amendment may initially look exactly like the content of the main part of Clause 1(1), ““Meaning of ‘the probation purposes’””. In fact, I deliberately selected the order of the paragraphs I put down here. They link to, and follow on directly from, Amendments Nos. 3 and 9, proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Judd, which we have just debated. With this amendment I am seeking to spell out rather more of the methods, having had the purposes explained in the amendment the noble Lord hoped would be accepted. Like everything else, you need to set out clearly the purposes of everything from which the methods flow. That clarity is needed above all when you are in an operational service such as the Probation Service, which has an operational responsibility for the management of the offenders who are put into its charge. At the same time you must describe the arrangements for people, so that they know where they come from. It is true that while we all instinctively support the idea of end-to-end management, whatever that means—in other words, there should be consistent oversight—we also support, and by ““we”” I include all the probation people with whom I have spoken, the fact that what needs to be delivered cannot be delivered by any one organisation alone; it needs the partnership of all available in the public, private and voluntary sectors. Indeed, partnership with the voluntary sector has been at the heart of the Probation Service since well before the 1997 Act, quite apart from what has happened since. I find it slightly ironic to learn that the Probation Service was actually commissioning more voluntary sector work before the Government made their changes than it is able to now. One of the problems, those in the service tell me, is the extreme financial pressure they are under; indeed, the financial officer of the London Probation Service described the problems of trying to manage his budget as trying to land a jumbo jet on a postage stamp—they are of that degree of magnitude. As my noble friend Lady Howarth said, we have to make certain that the authority of those people dealing with offenders is understood and absolute. This is about the management of offenders, and we must look after the people who do that. Therefore, I am slightly concerned that the tenor of the Bill, as reflected in what the Minister and the noble Lord, Lord Warner, said, is about commissioning and contracting, not about people. I submit that the first and most immediate thing to be put right when you are dealing with people is the people who will work with them. You have to have the right numbers; they have to be trained, directed and resourced. If that does not happen, the amount of commissioning and how it is done does not matter a damn. As we are talking about people and we look at how the Probation Service works, as my noble friend Lady Stern said so movingly, it is all about relationships between probation staff and others. Therefore, the methods by which you achieve the purposes must be to make certain that those probation officers are put in front of the people they have to look after, ready and able to do the work that is required. I spent all my working life, before leaving the Army, in an organisational service where we were accustomed to a hierarchical system. Everyone knew that they were responsible and accountable to someone, from the lowest rifleman right up to the Chief of the General Staff, the professional head of the Army who, in turn, went straight to Ministers. As has been mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Linklater, the Probation Service, which needs exactly the same responsibility and accountability chain, is to be bereft of its professional head who is no longer to be the link between the service and the Minister. That is a retrograde step, to be avoided at all costs. Having a person who is both the professional head of the Probation Service and the adviser to the Minister sitting in the Ministry of Justice is a means of entry into the delivery of probation everywhere which is simple, clear and well understood. I admit that in my amendment, my paragraph (b)is exactly the same as subsection (1)(a) in theBill; my paragraph (c) is exactly the same assubsection (1)(b); my paragraph (d) is the same as the Bill’s subsection (1)(c), but strengthened, as Ishall explain; my paragraph (e) is the same as subsection (1)(e); and my paragraph (h) is the same as subsection (1)(f). I set them out like that becauseI suggest that that is a more reasonable and understandable interpretation of the purposes and order of priority. Very deliberately I put first what I think ought to be the purpose, which is, "““working in partnership with appropriate public, private and voluntary sector organisations at local level””." That is at the heart of what must be done—empowering local probation services to go to whoever will provide the work appropriately. I submit that if that provision is included in the clause, a great deal of the rest of the Bill becomes unnecessary, because you have laid down that the partnership between the public, private and voluntary sectors is at the heart of how the services are delivered. There is no argument about it. All you need then do is make certain that the probation hierarchy, which is responsible for leading that partnership, has the resources with which to contract whoever it has to do whatever has to be done. If it is proposed that some contracting will be national, some regional and some local, it is essential that the person responsible overall for the delivery of probation lays down guidelines about which contracts will be national, which regional and which local. I have seen no regulatory impact assessment—although that may be the wrong term—of whether the private and voluntary sectors are able to deliver the sort of probation services that appear to be expected from them but about which there is no description. We do not know, and I wonder whether that work has been done. While everyone has aspirations, it is no good announcing them as policy unless you are certain that they can be delivered. Deliberately I have put the courts in the second paragraph because it explains that the relationship between the courts, probation and the police is absolutely fundamental. Assistance with conditional cautions must remain, but in paragraph (d), after, "““the supervision and rehabilitation of persons charged with or convicted of offences””," I have added the phrase, "““including those released from prison””." That is because they form a large part of probation responsibility, and that provision is not included in the current Clause 1. In paragraph (f) I have added, "““measures to ensure compliance with court orders””," which links in closely with our discussion about punishment in the earlier amendment, because it ensures compliance with orders of the court, which is what we are really talking about. It could be that it could go somewhere else, but it is absolutely essential to include a provision ensuring compliance in order to express the purpose of what has to be done with people. In paragraph (g), "““measures to ensure offenders’ awareness of the effect of crime””," again links in with what has been discussed already. However, it is terribly important to include it here for the simple reason that it is the direct connection with all the work being talked about under the principle of restorative justice. Many claims are made for restorative justice, but only if it is actually put down as one of the methods to be encouraged will people take it more seriously than is currently the case. Finally, paragraph (h) provides for, "““the giving of information and advice to victims””." What I have suggested in this amendment is something which the noble Baroness could take away to be considered by the Ministry of Justice, on whose behalf she is conducting this Committee stage. It is clear that she cannot give verdicts on what might or might not happen and obviously has to report back to the Minister now responsible for taking the Bill through. I would ask that what I have said should be considered carefully. If the idea of partnership is accepted right at the start of the Bill, it would make some of the rest of it not quite so necessary. I beg to move.