Offender Management Bill

I support this comprehensive list of amendments that relate to local commissioning, which is where we on these Benches believe commissioning belongs. Probation boards and/or trusts are the most appropriate bodies to judge local needs and to commission accordingly. The bodies or agencies may well be voluntary or private providers, and the boards have been commissioning them since 2001. Locally accountable chief officers and strengthened probation boards also provide a sound basis for closer links between probation and the courts. This is vital if local sentencers are to have a better understanding of, and greater confidence in, community sentences, as the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, has restated. Confidence is hard to develop and easy to destroy. It requires a constant and close relationship between users, sentencers and providers. We have a long way to go in building confidence. We are strong on the theory of community sentences and in our expressions of support for them, but in reality confidence is not high. Locally commissioned probation services can work closely with local authorities and can use already-established local strategic partnerships between voluntary groups, local government and other relevant groups. They could further develop local area agreements—we have covered that territory—to allow joined-up working across agencies within and beyond the criminal justice system. All of that facilitates the sharing of information and flexibility on how to manage the probation arrangements that are in place. There is a real risk and deeply felt concern that the Bill will disrupt a system and process that has been in place only since 2001, in which the Probation Service is performing well against all its government targets. That applies to enforcement, compliance, orders reaching the halfway point without being breached and, most sensitively, supervision of the most high-risk offenders under MAPPA. It is feared that without clear, simple and enforceable arrangements, there will fragmentation, lack of coherence and lack of the end-to-end management that is necessary for the best outcomes for society and offenders. The general thrust of government policy in the past few years has been a greater devolution of local affairs, but this is the most centralised set of proposals that we have seen. We have also stated the accepted fact that offending is a local phenomenon. A recent YouGov poll showed that the public view local rather than national agencies in a positive way. The management of MAPPA, which is a sensitive area politically and practically, is especially worrying. It is hard to see how the national or regional model will work and how significant partners such as the courts, police—now under the Home Office—health services and others can be effective unless they are kept near the ground, close to where the needs, problems and solutions lie. In relation to that, the issue of representation on the trusts remains vague. The concession that a local councillor should be a member of a trust is welcome, but confusion remains as to whether magistrates or judges, for example, will be represented. Will there be a conflict of interests if commercial contracts are entered into by a trust and a judge is a member? I understand that Judge Levenson, a senior judge, said that he thought not. If that is the case, an important link will be severed. Can the Minister clarify that for us? It is such a key area that we will listen to what the Minister says and return to the matter on Report for further discussion and clarification.