Offender Management Bill

I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, for tabling these amendments. As she said, they give me an opportunity to make the case more clearly. I take her point about confidence in the system, a point which was echoed by the noble Baronesses, Lady Linklater and Lady Howe, and the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham. I say to all those who have spoken—including the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, who spoke so forcefully—that we, too, understand the importance of locally commissioned services. We believe that the framework on which we have embarked is the right one. Responding to the amendment also gives me an opportunity to discuss in more detail how we intend to implement the provisions of the Bill. In so doing, I hope that I can dispel a few of the myths that have built up around our proposals. I hope that I can make clear that we are not as divided on this issue as it might first appear. I am conscious of the time. As the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, says, it is unfortunate that her important amendment is being considered so late. However, I think that I have to give her the courtesy of replying now. I know that she wishes to consider it before taking matters further. As we discussed, Clause 2 gives the Secretary of State the responsibility for ensuring sufficient provision for probation services. Clause 3 sets out how he may go about this. It enables the Secretary of State to make contractual or other arrangements with any other person for the making of probation provision. Before I turn to the amendments, however, noble Lords may find it useful if I speak in a little detail about what the clause is intended to achieve and how we propose to implement it. I do not think that the three tiers of commissioning are well understood. At the national level, the overall objectives, standards and targets for the system are set. At the regional level, contract management, probation trusts, prisons and purchase of the interventions that are more effectively delivered across a whole region are managed. At the local level we have the purchasing interventions that the offender managers need to deliver their sentence plans. That is the framework. Currently, 42 local boards are each required to make provision for all services in their individual area, working centrally to set targets. We want to move from this to an approach based on commissioning. This is the process of identifying and then securing the services needed to reduce reoffending and protect the public. As I indicated, commissioning will be national, regional and local. Within the framework, although most services will be commissioned locally, some will be better commissioned at the regional level. Last week, the noble Lady, Baroness Howarth—who is not in her place today—shared with us the difficulties that an organisation such as the Faithfull Foundation, doing specialist work with sex offenders, can experience with local commissioning. Regional commissioners also have a key role in strategic partnership working, operating alongside other regional bodies such as strategic health authorities to ensure that the full range of services are available to tackle reoffending—a theme the importance of which several noble Lords highlighted both last week and today. In touching on that, I should correct myself. When we were talking earlier about the work undertaken by Sarah Payne in the south-east, I had neglected to recall that Dr Jo Nurse is a consultant attached to the Government Office for the South East, specialising in public health. That is how she comes to look at those issues. As I say, however, most services will be commissioned locally by lead providers operating within a framework agreed with the regional commissioner. They will deliver some services in-house and subcontract for others, ensuring that they have the best available services to meet the needs identified in the offender’s sentence plan. That will help to guard against the fragmentation which some have feared by ensuring that the regional commissioners are not, in fact, holding myriad small contracts with lots of providers. It will maintain local engagement because commissioners at local level are best placed to understand the needs of their local community, and it will help to protect the position of small voluntary sector organisations. The Bill will enable us to ensure the right balance between those different levels. I am struck by how the amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, seem to be intended to achieve similar outcomes to our proposals. As she explained, her amendments are intended to ensure that probation services are commissioned locally. On that, as I have already made clear, we are agreed. However, I hope she will forgive me for saying that I do not think that her amendments would create a workable model. They would create a situation where the statutory duty to provide probation services rests with the Secretary of State, but he has the power to make arrangements only if they have not been made by probation boards or probation trusts. In particular, the model provides no clarity of responsibility or accountability for the provision of probation services and the relationship between the provider and the Secretary of State is unclear. It is also unclear under what circumstances and on what basis the Secretary of State would intervene to commission services directly. The apparent presumption in favour of the public sector cuts across our presumption in favour of the best available provider. I heard what the noble Baroness said about not being antipathetic to commissioning or contestability, but I say as gently as I can that that is not apparent in the amendments. It is unclear how the structure proposed by her amendments will enable other providers to make a full contribution. As I have already said, it is not enough to say, ““Just give the powers to probation boards and they will do it,”” because we know that that is not sufficient. The fact of the matter is that probation boards have the power now to make arrangements with others to deliver services on their behalf, yet the current sub-contracting rate of only 3.6 per cent of services seems to show that they are not choosing to do so. I simply cannot believe that the public sector probation service is best placed to deliver 96 per cent of probation services. I referred to this in an earlier part of the debate when I said that probation services have tended to hold too much to themselves. We know that there are others who can share that burden with them. As I have already made clear, that is why we need the powers in the Bill to ensure that a greater range of providers is enabled to play a part and to enable the public sector to focus on its strengths, which are considerable. We also need to be able to commission across geographical and organisational boundaries where that makes sense; for example, where a specialist service might be more effectively delivered across a region than on an individual area basis or where it could sensibly span the prison/custody divide. Commissioning enables us to ensure that services are delivered by the best available provider according to local needs. We can ensure that the work of professional probation officers is supplemented by other sectors enabling them to concentrate on making end-to-end offender management a reality. We can do so with absolute clarity, setting out clearly in contract what is expected from every provider. That brings me to the question of plans, which we discussed under the previous amendments. In our amendment, we set out a comprehensive set of provisions for plans to be published by the Secretary of State, probation trusts and any other provider so designated by the Secretary of State. The relationship between the plans is clear, reflecting the clarity of the relationships between the providers themselves, and offers a consistent and coherent approach. Further provisions are therefore unnecessary. As I mentioned earlier, there is really not as much dividing us as the noble Baroness might think. We actually want the same outcomes, but I am afraid that the model that she proposes offers a recipe for confusion with no clarity on who is responsiblefor delivering what and for whom. That is not a basis for improving performance or making an even better impact on reducing reoffending. I say that with a note of surprise because in all the work that I have done with the noble Baroness, she has always insisted on asking who, what, when and for how long. Therefore, when I come to draft and work with my officials, I always have her clearly in my mind. I know the questions that she is going to ask me and how I must answer her. As gently as I can, I say to her that I am surprised that she has not followed her own rubric. Clause 3 provides a sensible set of options to make arrangements for the delivery of probation services. I therefore hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment. What she proposes is a situation very similar to that which we currently have, but without the clarity. At the moment, we have the 42 independent local probation boards, the Secretary of State with a reserve power to intervene, but only in the case of failure, and the boards now commission 96 per cent. The system that she intends to put in place is almost the same as that which we have now but without the safeguards. Our system is very different. We think that we have the local balance right. We think that many changes have been beneficial—the plans being written into the Bill; making it clear how we will commission; the issue of accountability; and the issue of consultation. Those are all very important amendments and improvements that we have crafted together in the other place and, now, here. I hope that I have given the noble Baroness a huge amount to think about and have persuaded her that I have followed her advice and that we now have the system right.