Schedule 5 — Repeals

Orders of the Day – in the House of Commons at 5:45 pm on 28 February 2007.

Alert me about debates like this

Votes in this debate

Amendment made: No. 17, in page 35, line 34, column 2, after 'paragraph 4,', insert

'the word "and" at the end of the definition of "escort arrangements" and'.— [Mr. Sutcliffe.]

Order for Third Reading read.

Photo of John Reid John Reid Home Secretary, The Secretary of State for the Home Department 5:59, 28 February 2007

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

We have had a productive and useful debate this afternoon on Report. Despite my inability to attend all of the debate, I can assure the House that I was listening to it intently during discussions with many deeply interested Members from both sides of the House. I thank everyone who has contributed in the Chamber today and on previous occasions, and those who have contributed outside the Chamber in discussions with the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend Mr. Sutcliffe, and me.

The contributors and the contributions have significantly improved the Bill in several areas, some of which I will deal with tonight. However, there are also several issues to which we will wish to return in the other place.

Over the past few weeks, my hon. Friend the Minister and I have met a range of parliamentary colleagues, prison and probation staff and those who assist the service, in addition to representatives of the voluntary, private and charitable sectors and the Local Government Association. Considerable consultation has occurred even as the Bill has gone through the House and I know that some of my right hon. and hon. Friends have had personal experience of that. We have listened carefully, as we are duty bound to listen on any occasion, but especially when we are dealing with such serious issues with such potentially serious consequences. In addition, we have studied the many helpful amendments that have been tabled. I wish to summarise how we have responded to those concerns and how we will continue to work to improve the Bill as it continues its passage. Before I do so, I wish to make a few general remarks about the underlying principles behind the legislation for the benefit of colleagues and for the avoidance of doubt.

For the avoidance of all doubt, I wish to make it clear that this Bill is about supplementing the probation service, to reduce reoffending and to protect the public. Its primary purpose in practical terms is to protect those who send us to this House by reducing, through rehabilitation, supervision and better management, the reoffending that so often afflicts our society with individual and, sometimes, collective tragedy. It is not about privatising the probation service.

The public sector already has, and will continue to have, a key role to play in the management and rehabilitation of offenders. To illustrate our commitment to that, I merely point not to our words, but to our practice over the past few years. The Government have invested massively in the public sector probation services. Since 1997, overall staff numbers in the probation service, which some hon. Members mentioned earlier, have not reduced: they have gone up by no less than 50 per cent. or 7,000 more staff. Public probation service funding has also increased by 40 per cent. in the past five years alone. We have shown a sustained commitment to the public sector and we will maintain that sustained commitment to our probation services.

Moreover, the increased inputs that I have described—in resources, staffing and new methodology—have been converted into improvements in the treatment of offenders. This year, the number of offenders being taught basic skills is four times what it was only four years ago, while the number of offenders subject to accredited offending programmes is five times what it was five years ago. That shows that there has been a vast improvement in the numbers of people receiving assistance.

For instance, funding for prison drug treatment has risen since 1997 by 973 per cent.—that is, a rise of almost 1,000 per cent. in the money available for treatment for drugs-related offenders. Yet, even so, the reoffending rate has remained stubbornly high, and that is one of the reasons why we are discussing these matters this evening.

We can argue about the exact details of reoffending rates for different categories of offenders, but we all know that the rate has remained high in spite of all our efforts. I want to try to build on the investment that has been made already by enabling specialist providers in the voluntary, charitable and private sectors to supplement—not supplant—the public sector, where appropriate. I want to harness all the available energies in the reduction of reoffending, and that is the first point that I want to make.

My second point follows on from that, and has to do with my overriding concern to provide public protection and offender rehabilitation. Both those priorities are at the heart of the Bill—and as a result much of the Bill is not contentious—but they involve huge challenges that are too intractable for any one sector to handle alone.

We need to open up the reservoir of potential assistance for offenders so that all providers—be they public, voluntary, charitable or in the private sector—can play to their strengths. We will not make a real impact in reducing offending if we cannot harness the specialist skills and resources of organisations familiar to, and respected by, Members of this House. They include organisations such as the National Association for the Care and Resettlement of Offenders, Turning Point, Rainer, Crime Concern, and the St. Giles Trust. The latter organisation, which I visited last Saturday, helps offenders by providing employment opportunities: only people who have been down a hole can help others get out.

We want to use all the specialist skills that are available to complement the work done by the public sector. If they are given the chance, organisations such as the ones to which I have referred have a huge amount to contribute, and all of them back the Bill. They might not agree with its every aspect, but they welcome the core approach on which it is based, and the advances that its formulation will make possible. They do not merely acquiesce in our proposals; rather, they have expressed their support both publicly and in private.

I turn now to the question of targets—a matter that has been raised constantly both with me and with my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South. People are very concerned, but we already have targets determining how much work must be contracted out of the public sector. In other words, they determine the outcome for services that must be put into the non-public sector by the probation board. In future, we shall abolish the existing targets and replace them with an entirely different type of aspiration. In future, the aspirations—the targets—will not be based on the a priori assumption that there is a level of non-public sector work that must be carried out, whether or not it gives best value or is from the best provider. That would be a dogmatic approach that could unjustifiably force work out of the public sector. No a priori assumptions will be made under our approach.

Photo of John Reid John Reid Home Secretary, The Secretary of State for the Home Department

Certainly, when I have finished this section of my speech.

Let me make it clear: if a public sector provider is good enough, even outwith time scale or theme, or the assurances about ring-fenced areas that I shall give, it will have as much chance as anyone else to win the work—some would say a better chance, given the history of some providers' involvement and experience. Our aim is simply to ensure that the best provider delivers best value for the taxpayer. That is our purpose.

Photo of Clive Betts Clive Betts Labour, Sheffield, Attercliffe

As my right hon. Friend knows, I have raised this issue with him so I am heartened by his comments. He seems to be saying that probation trusts will be required, for a certain percentage of their non-core work, to seek the provider who is most suitable and can deliver best value, and that provider could be in the public, private or voluntary sector. The process would be akin to the best value procedure familiar to many of us in local government and which is generally supported.

Photo of John Reid John Reid Home Secretary, The Secretary of State for the Home Department

That is precisely what I am saying. Indeed, I would go a little further. Although we have not yet worked out the exact detail as to how that aim might be attained we would obviously look at where best value is already pursued and is a central objective of the process—for instance, in local government. We will study those schemes, to find out whether we can learn from them and incorporate those lessons.

Photo of John Reid John Reid Home Secretary, The Secretary of State for the Home Department

I shall give way first to John Bercow, whom I discourteously forgot, and then to my hon. Friend.

Photo of John Bercow John Bercow Conservative, Buckingham

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that it is difficult effectively to educate or train people who cannot communicate? If he agrees with that proposition how does he intend to address the problem?

Photo of John Reid John Reid Home Secretary, The Secretary of State for the Home Department

I agree entirely with the hon. Gentleman's proposition. May I tell him a little anecdote in response? I mentioned earlier that last Saturday morning I visited a voluntary group in London made up of previous offenders who help offenders. They paid me the compliment of telling me that I was not as starchy as they had anticipated—I think it was a compliment. As I was talking to them I noticed pictures on the walls of faces that I recognised, but I could not see the writing underneath. When I looked more closely, I saw that one of the pictures was of Einstein and another was of Churchill and that the word I could not read was "dyslexia". That group had realised that central to many of the difficulties in rehabilitating offenders was not just lack of education but problems in acquiring it.

One of the reasons why I want more prison places is based not on the assumption that we can build our way out of difficulties by constantly building more places but on the need to create time and physical space to increase further the education carried out in prisons. If rehabilitation is not carried out, the reoffending will not drop, and if the reoffending will not drop, the public will be no safer than they were in the first place. I entirely agree with what the hon. Gentleman says.

Photo of Patrick Hall Patrick Hall Labour, Bedford

I would like to say how much I welcome—and how much many others inside and outside the House will welcome—the clarity that the Secretary of State has brought to the issue of competitions for service provision, particularly making it clear that they will include the public sector. The outcome could mean the public sector winning some of these contracts. My right hon. Friend has also stressed at least the principle of best value—rather than the lowest or the cheapest—as the underlying methodology by which tenders will be judged. I would be interested to know when he will be able to elaborate on the best value system that may be adopted.

Photo of John Reid John Reid Home Secretary, The Secretary of State for the Home Department

I trust that we will be able to provide more detail about how we would apply those principles in practice during the course of proceedings, perhaps in the other place. It is certainly our intention that any target, aspiration, aim or formulation of a figure will relate to the amount of service that might be scrutinised in order to get best value; the figure is not a determination of how much must end up in the private, charitable, voluntary—or, for that matter, public— sector. I make that plain. That is in addition to some guarantees that I will provide later on about some of the more serious elements of offender management. That will mean that, for a prolonged period, that area will not even go through that scrutiny, because I want to proceed cautiously.

Photo of Gordon Prentice Gordon Prentice Labour, Pendle

Which elements of the contract will be regarded as commercially confidential? As my friend knows, in the health service, where the private sector is being brought in, many contracts are commercially confidential.

Photo of John Reid John Reid Home Secretary, The Secretary of State for the Home Department

I think that the Under-Secretary has already responded to my hon. Friend on that matter. In so far as it is possible, we make these things as public and as transparent as possible. When we have to choose between A and B rather than simply allocate to A, it is important to have a degree of scrutiny and transparency that did not exist hitherto. On the specific detail of particular contracts and services, I cannot dictate from the Dispatch Box today, but I will undertake to write to my hon. Friend on this matter, if he will allow me.

I would like to make some progress. As I was saying, we will look at the principles and how to apply them in attaining best value. As to improvements to the Bill, I would like to mention one or two key undertakings—resulting directly from discussions with my right hon. and hon. Friends—that we have given since Second Reading. I hope that my hon. Friends will feel that they address their very real concerns—I do not doubt for a moment that those concerns are real.

The first undertaking relates to local accountability. We have listened carefully to views expressed on both sides of the House and put forward by organisations such as the Local Government Association. I want to emphasise that we are as keen—and, personally, I am as keen—as everyone else to ensure that local probation trusts are accountable to local people and that whatever happens in the locality, we do not have the imposition of an external group of professionals who happen to come along. I want truly to get some form of local representation built into the probation trust and I firmly believe that the Bill will, together with related reforms, increase not reduce that accountability. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary has offered some important new commitments.

Photo of Frank Cook Frank Cook Labour, Stockton North

The House knows that I am a Teesside MP, and I am concerned about the impact of the measures on that area. Is my right hon. Friend saying that a degree of autonomy will be afforded to the Teesside probation service to look after aspects of its own behaviour?

Photo of John Reid John Reid Home Secretary, The Secretary of State for the Home Department

I certainly hope so. Although there is a regional commissioner, I hope that we can lock in the guarantee of accountability below the regional level—not just in Teesside, but further down the geographic scale. Let me tell my hon. Friend about one or two of the things that we have agreed to do since our previous deliberations on the Bill.

First, there will be a duty on probation boards to co-operate and share data with local authorities, so local accountability representation will be locked into the data sharing. Secondly, there will be statutory provision for probation trust boards to include councillor representatives. I understand that, given those and other assurances, the Local Government Association is now happy that the Bill addresses its concerns about local accountability.

I have also written to David Davis to say that we will look sympathetically at some of his proposals, including the amendments that would require probation trusts to publish annual plans and that would require the Secretary of State to consult local trusts about national and regional offender management plans.

Photo of John Reid John Reid Home Secretary, The Secretary of State for the Home Department

If my hon. Friend will let me go a little further, I will certainly give way to her in a moment.

After discussing that matter and similar subjects with colleagues, I should like to say something about the importance of local representation and identity, not just accountability, on trust boards. That issue was raised by my hon. Friends the Members for Stockton, North (Frank Cook), for Blackpool, South (Mr. Marsden), for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Betts), for Wansbeck (Mr. Murphy) and for Bedford (Patrick Hall). I agree with them; I would expect board chairs to be drawn largely from local areas, and we would be happy to make that clear in the guidance that will follow on from the legislation.

A number of colleagues have also raised the importance of local area agreements, which have already been discussed in the context of the Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Bill. They are important because they place obligations on a range of partners, including probation boards, to co-operate with local authorities in the preparation of local area agreements beneath regional level. I can confirm that this duty will also apply to probation trusts. Going one final step, I also want to consider how regional commissioners should be involved in local area agreements. At the moment, local probation boards participate in the local area agreement, but I want to ensure that the regional commissioner is also involved.

Photo of Judy Mallaber Judy Mallaber Labour, Amber Valley

Following directly from my right hon. Friend's last point, does he accept the concerns of a number of us about the accountability of regional commissioners to local areas? What guarantee can he give that regional commissioners will not be able to ride roughshod over local area agreements, and that the decisions taken locally between local agencies, the probation board and all others involved will be regarded as the main source for determining what is needed in each area?

Photo of John Reid John Reid Home Secretary, The Secretary of State for the Home Department

I recognise my hon. Friend's concerns, and I hope that what I have said tonight illustrates not only that but my attempt to address some of them. I have said that we are going to go further than just ensuring that the local probation trust inherits the obligations of the present probation boards as part of the local area agreement. We will consider how the regional commissioner is to be involved in the local area agreements, precisely because that is such an important factor. At the end, there will be a double lock of accountability because the commissioner will be involved in the local area agreement, and, through the Secretary of State, any actions arising from that may be subject to the scrutiny of the House as well. It is precisely because those matters were raised by my hon. Friends that I have tried to address them in the points that I have made.

Photo of Neil Gerrard Neil Gerrard Labour, Walthamstow

May I pursue the question of the local area agreements and the trusts? In the structure that is being proposed in the Bill, the Secretary of State or perhaps, in practice, the regional offender manager, will take on the role of the commissioner, whereas the trusts will become the contractors and the providers of the service. I have never come across a commissioner-contractor arrangement before where discussions go on with the contractor about what the levels of service will be. The structure that he is trying to describe to us is getting very confusing.

Photo of John Reid John Reid Home Secretary, The Secretary of State for the Home Department

No, I think that it is my hon. Friend who is becoming confused. I am not suggesting that the regional commissioner would sit on the probation trust; I am suggesting that the regional commissioner should have an involvement in the local area agreement in some way. The local area agreement involves a whole host of partners who come together. At the moment, one of those partners is the present probation board, which is both a commissioner and a provider. That will change and the commissioner element of that will go to the regional commissioner. I am saying that at present there is no requirement for him or her to relate to the local area agreement. I am going to consider how to make that some form of relationship. There is no confusion or contradiction. That follows on from the commissioning role of the previous probation board.

Before I conclude, I turn to the second great issue.

Photo of John Grogan John Grogan Labour, Selby

Will the Home Secretary give way?

Photo of John Reid John Reid Home Secretary, The Secretary of State for the Home Department

I have to make some progress, if my hon. Friend will allow me. If time permits, I will come back to him.

An important issue that Members raised continually and on which I am prepared to offer assurances relates to the role of the public sector in relation to offender management itself—that is, the overseeing and supervision of serious offenders. I understand the concerns of some colleagues about the pace of the reforms and I want to assure hon. Members that we will not rush this process. An important move such as this ought to be undertaken with care and caution and I have previously made it plain that it will be undertaken carefully and cautiously. I can therefore give an assurance today, building on what I said the last time I spoke on the matter at the Dispatch Box, that the core offender management tasks of the probation service—for example, offender report writing, offender supervision and breach proceedings—will remain in the public sector for the next three years. That is for at least the lifetime of this Parliament. I alluded to that the last time I was here and I make it plain again today. For the next three years, the core tasks of offender management will remain in the public sector.

Photo of Patrick Hall Patrick Hall Labour, Bedford

Will my right hon. Friend take on board the issue that I raised this afternoon about the need to set up a mechanism whereby we are able to monitor and then report on what happens on the ground over the next three years so that the evidence from that can inform any future developments?

Photo of John Reid John Reid Home Secretary, The Secretary of State for the Home Department

I listened carefully to what my hon. Friend said this afternoon. It is a logical follow-on from what I said earlier about the motivation being best value and best providers, not any dogmatic insistence that services should be provided in this or that sector, that decisions must be based on the evidence. What I took him to be asking in the course of the afternoon was whether we could use the period during which the management of offenders would be retained in the public sector to compile monitoring and reports that illustrate the efficacy or otherwise of the process.

That is a perfectly legitimate and intelligent thing to ask and I therefore give the undertaking that we will do that, so that, before we get to any future stage—I will mention another lock on that point—people can see the evidence about how things have been working. In short, I know that this is an area of particular concern for some colleagues and therefore I am extending the time during which this aspect will be retained in the public sector to the lifetime of this Parliament. That is what I said last time I was at the Dispatch Box and I repeat it now.

I know that there is particular concern among hon. Members about the support that the public probation service gives to courts, especially regarding the writing of reports, which is at the heart of offender management. That is an especially important and sensitive area of work that can be key to the success, or otherwise, of what follows to reduce reoffending and to protect the public. For that reason, we tabled an amendment requiring the Secretary of State to contract only with the public sector for the work that the probation service does in relation to courts. That provision could be repealed only by an order subject to the affirmative procedure that was agreed by both Houses of Parliament.

If, at some future point, any Government were to decide that the time was right to open up that area of work to non-public sector providers, they would have to make the case to Parliament, and Parliament would have the final say. In short, there is a three-year guarantee for the retention of offender management in the public sector and a double lock meaning that any movement after that will require a vote of both Houses of Parliament. I believe that those assurances are hugely significant and I hope that they will go a considerable way towards meeting the major concerns that hon. Members have expressed to me. I assure hon. Members that we have listened to their concerns and that we will continue to listen.

Photo of John Reid John Reid Home Secretary, The Secretary of State for the Home Department

In fairness, I should give way to my hon. Friend Mr. Grogan, who tried to intervene earlier.

Photo of John Grogan John Grogan Labour, Selby

May I bring my right hon. Friend back to his comments about regional offender managers? He said that they would be involved in some way with local opinion. Does he agree that that phrase lacks his usual precision and does little to comfort those of us who fear that an awful lot of power is being placed in the hands of nine or 10 regional offender managers who will be ultimately accountable not to local opinion and local people, as is the case under the existing system, but to him?

Photo of John Reid John Reid Home Secretary, The Secretary of State for the Home Department

My hon. Friend is not being entirely fair. First, I have said that we will have elected local councillors on the probation trusts. Secondly, I have said that the trusts will be required to publish their plans. Thirdly, I have said that the regional commissioner will be required to consult the trusts. Fourthly, I am now saying that I will consider ways of ensuring that the regional commissioner relates to the local area agreement. I have done that in a framework through which I am guaranteeing that offender management will stay in the public sector for three years. Even after that, a vote of both Houses of Parliament will be needed to change the situation. If that does not bring my hon. Friend comfort, I am not quite sure what will. I have listened and moved a considerable way, as many hon. Members will recognise. I am as determined as anyone else in the House to get this right, otherwise the public will not be protected and the people who will carry the can for that will be Ministers.

I have tried to consider the views of Labour Members, and in some cases I have compromised significantly. I have done so because, in the vast majority of cases, their concerns are shaped by a commitment to this public service and public protection and underpinned by sincerity.

I now turn to the Conservative party and, especially, to the Leader of the Opposition. In November 2005, Mr. Cameron said:

"If the Labour Party puts forward proposals which we agree with, then we should support them and not just oppose for opposition's sake. That is the sort of Punch and Judy politics that people in Britain are tired of and which we must end."

Of course, we have been told continually about the commitment of the new Conservatives to work in partnership with the voluntary sector. They make general statements about that, but we have the benefit of a special statement from the Leader of the Opposition:

"I don't think that the voluntary sector has an important role to play. I believe that the voluntary sector has the crucial role to play."

He was talking about penal policy and offenders.

I understand that despite all these avowed intentions and promises, the Opposition are considering voting against the Bill tonight. That is a choice for them alone to make, but I caution them against opposition for opportunism's sake. To vote against the Government tonight, in contradiction to everything that they have publicly declared in the past, even if they were to win, would be at best a hollow victory, since in capturing the minutes of opportunism they will have thrown away the hours of integrity, and it will be noticed by the public. It is the sustaining of principles and policy over the hours that is the true mark of leadership and potential Governments, not the opportunistic minutes. Even worse, and I say this to my hon. Friends as well, if they vote against the Bill tonight, abandoning all consistency and principle, grasping nothing but hollow air and opportunism, and they lose, they will then have lost twice. They will have lost their political credibility entirely; they will have lost their integrity; and they will have done it in pursuit of a cheap, opportunistic hit.

I say to my hon. Friends that the Conservatives' predicament is always our opportunity. Members on the Labour Benches should remember that when we are voting we can not only improve offender management and the protection of our people in this country but expose the Conservative party for what it truly is—a bunch of policy-less, principle-less opportunists. I commend the Bill to the House.

Photo of David Davis David Davis Shadow Secretary of State (Home Office) 6:36, 28 February 2007

I start by agreeing with the Home Secretary on one thing. Like him, I listened to much of the debate and thought that nearly all of it was serious, principled and important, even those parts I disagreed with. The only part that I would except from that is the last two minutes of his speech. I am fascinated to be lectured by this Home Secretary on credibility.

The Government said that the aim of the Bill is to reduce reoffending. Everyone in the House, indeed everyone in the country excepting perhaps the criminal fraternity, would applaud that aim, and we certainly do. As the Home Secretary said, we specifically support the idea of more diversity of provision. The support that we gave on Second Reading was not unconditional, and we said that clearly at the time. My hon. and learned Friend Mr. Garnier said that

"we see a Government addicted to control and centrally devised models".

He went on to say:

"Our support for the Bill is not open-ended but conditional on the Government's responding to us... If they work with us and improve the Bill, the Government will have a new regime for the supervision of offenders that works. If they ignore us, we will...defeat this Bill on Third Reading and in another place."—[ Hansard, 11 December 2006; Vol. 454, c. 601-2.]

That was very clear and very consistent. If the Home Secretary was not listening, that is his problem.

The picture that the Home Secretary paints of the progress of the Bill is hard to recognise, with the possible exception of the last 48 hours. The Opposition—both Opposition parties, it is fair to say—made every effort to secure a cross-party approach in Committee to try to achieve the best Bill possible. For example, right at the beginning we called for an evidence-taking session to get the best expert evidence on what change would really deliver practical benefits. That was under the new rules brought in by the Leader of the House. That was refused point blank by the Home Secretary. So much for consultation. But we held the session anyway.

In January the Committee heard from independent experts in the field, and the few quotes that I shall now read to the House are from the House of Commons Library note on that hearing, which I take as an impartial summary record. The former chief inspector of prisons, a very principled man who has stood up for his cause over time,

"identified the principal problem facing the Probation Service as one of overload, and was sceptical that trusts, by contracting out the supervision of offenders to the private or voluntary sector, could solve the problem."

The former head of the Prison Service and the probation service, Martin Narey, who was prayed in aid by the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, Mr. Sutcliffe, earlier,

"argued in favour of both offender management and competition, but said that neither counted for much unless the right balance could be struck between sentencing and the prison population, because of the damage overcrowding does to work on rehabilitation."

The head of the respected home affairs think-tank Civitas

"suggested that the Government's proposals on contestability were being too dominated by central Government to allow sufficient innovation."

Even the Home Secretary acknowledged our collaborative approach, only this week thanking my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition for our "constructive" engagement through the Committee stage. Those were his words—a little different from the words he used tonight. However, as the Library note makes clear, the Bill was not substantively amended at all in Committee. So much for constructive engagement with the Opposition.

Although one amendment has belatedly been accepted by the Government today, that does not change the central flaw of the Bill. The Home Secretary—amazingly, in a Third Reading debate after a Committee stage and a Report stage, still proposing to amend the Bill—promised some minor changes that would not fundamentally alter the fact that the trusts, as Mr. Grogan pointed out, are, in the final analysis, appointed by and accountable to the Home Secretary, not to their communities. So much for localism.

On that basis, the Home Secretary is correct: we cannot support yet another Home Office Bill. There are three principal grounds on which we shall vote against Third Reading. First, despite the Home Secretary's claims, the Bill is about more centralised Government control over offender management. Let us be clear: over-centralisation is bad in its own right, but over-centralisation in a Department that is already in difficulty, that is struggling to cope and that may simultaneously have to cope with a massive reorganisation as the Home Office is cut in two, is a recipe for disaster—something that the present Home Secretary might recognise.

In his letter of 26 February to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition, the Home Secretary claimed to be championing a "more devolved approach" to the system, one that would be sensitive "to local needs". Again, those are his words. But the head of the Probation Boards Association, whom I regard as a more credible witness, described the Bill on the "Today" programme this morning—

Photo of David Davis David Davis Shadow Secretary of State (Home Office)

No doubt he is outgoing, now. He said:

"It centralises everything on the Home Office and removes responsibility from local people who govern the probation service."

The Government claim that the Bill is all about contestability, opening up the provision of offender management services to the private and voluntary sectors. The Home Secretary wrote in The Daily Telegraph on Monday that

"the voluntary sector is queuing up to help."

Let me be clear. We welcome wider involvement and greater competition in the delivery of those public services. We welcome the involvement of the private and voluntary sectors and the innovation that they can bring to probation services. But the Government have offered no compelling reason why we need yet another piece of legislation to increase their own self-imposed level of 3 per cent. of expenditure that is currently outsourced.

That the Bill is not necessary to achieve that was made clear by hon. Members on both sides of the Chamber during this afternoon's debate. In addition, we were told by the Probation Boards Association that the level of private and voluntary sector provision

"was at least twice as much before the Home Office, under the current Government, decided that was not money well spent", so they halved it. It is clearly possible to double, if not treble or quadruple, the quantity of service provision from the private and voluntary sectors without any new legislation. In December, the Home Secretary told the Home Affairs Committee that the Home Office should spend

"a little more time delivering", and a little less time "passing laws". I urge the right hon. Gentleman to heed his own advice.

The second ground for opposition is that the proposals focus on yet another organisational restructuring—the third probation service reorganisation in six years. It is impossible to improve service delivery in that way. The constant bureaucratic reshuffling is—again, I quote the head of the Probation Boards Association this morning—"ridiculously expensive". He is right. It is estimated that the provisions of the Bill will require a further 1,600 civil servants to operate—I heard the Under-Secretary set his face against that—and the Government are spending nearly £900 million on NOMS headquarters, which is £60 million more than they are spending on the front-line delivery of probation services.

The final reason why the Opposition will vote against the Bill is that, as it stands, it is a real distraction from the problems at hand. There have been 60 Home Office Bills in 10 years, during which time reoffending rates rose by 10 per cent., which is an historic increase, but the Government still have not learned one self-evident truth: they cannot legislate their law and order failings away. The reason for the soaring prison reoffending rate is the failure to retrain and rehabilitate in prison, and the reason for that is the chaos and disruption caused by the Government's failure to provide enough prison places. The Bill will do nothing to solve that.

The reason for many of the serious crimes and even murders committed by those on parole and probation is the fact that the Government cut the number of face-to-face interviews before release by 90 per cent. The Bill will not solve that, and it will do nothing to stem the danger to the public that is the direct result of chronic prison overcrowding—a problem that the Government predicted, but a responsibility that they abdicated. The benefits claimed for the Bill do not, in fact, require legislation, but its harmful aspects are a direct result of it. That is why we will vote against the Bill on Third Reading, and why, when the Bill goes to the other place, we will seek to amend it drastically to remove the massive over-centralisation that it entails.

Photo of David Heath David Heath Shadow Leader of the House of Commons, Shadow Spokesperson (Cabinet Office) 6:46, 28 February 2007

I start by thanking the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, Mr. Sutcliffe, for the competent and well-humoured way in which he conducted himself on Report; that was appreciated by the whole House. Moving on to the Home Secretary's extensive speech, which took up the majority of the time allocated for Third Reading, he painted a warm, fuzzy picture of what he believed some of his hon. Friends would like the Bill to be, and of what he believed he might persuade them that it meant. That picture bears little relation to the words in the Bill, or to its consequences if it is passed tonight.

The Home Secretary employed the common ground shared by all parties. We all want a seamless transition between prison, the probation service and, beyond that, proper rehabilitation in the community. We all want those services to be improved; that is common ground, and we do not need the Bill to achieve it. He said that he wants to supplement, rather than supplant, the probation service, but if he intends to supplement it, why did he not accept the amendments proposed by Mr. Gerrard? Why did he not accept that some core areas are the proper province of the probation service, but that in other areas, it would be possible to supplement what the probation service does with proper involvement of the voluntary and charity, or indeed private, sectors?

We have to take into account what we heard before today's speech. We must hear the mood music—the famous speech at Wormwood Scrubs, and the rubbishing of much of the probation service's work, which took place before this debate and before the introduction of the Bill. During the stages of the Bill, there has been no indication of how it will address the failings that the Home Secretary perceives in the performance of the probation service. The repeated refrain was that the Bill will engage the services of the charity and not-for-profit sectors in ways that are not possible at the moment, but it was never said what the barriers were to engaging those services under current legislation. Many of us believe that those barriers are not there. The only answer that the Minister gave, in the Bill's earlier stages, was that the Bill would change the culture of the probation service—a proposition that I find laughable.

We should consider the reality of the Bill before us, including what are purported to be Government concessions. I repeat that giving a concession with one hand while including, in the same group of amendments, a new clause that provides for repeal of that concession, seems an extraordinary way of doing business.

Basically, this is a centralising Bill that concentrates power directly in the hands of the Secretary of State and his appointees. What clearer illustration of that could there be than the fact that the Home Secretary presented as a major concession the provision for probation trust chairmen to be drawn from the areas in which the trusts work. That is not a concession but local accountability—the chair should have a relationship to the area with which the trust is involved.

The Bill will result in a great failing in accountability. At the moment, if a mistake is made in the probation service, the service is publicly accountable, both locally and nationally. The Home Secretary can order an inquiry and the probation inspectorate can conduct an inquiry on its own initiative. We can raise such matters in the House, and remedy or improvement can be made. Under the contracted-out arrangements, if there are errors the best that can happen is a breach of contract, which is remediable under civil law. That is not the way in which such a desperately important service should operate. We face the prospect of newly appointed commissioners with no direct experience commissioning services from newly appointed operatives with no direct experience of providing such services. We opposed the Bill on Second Reading, and we have been entirely consistent in our view. We hoped that the Secretary of State would redesign the Bill to achieve the objectives that he set out today, but he has not done so. He has not taken the advice proffered in Committee and on the Floor of the House, and for that reason, we stand resolute, and we will oppose the Bill again this evening.

Photo of Stuart Bell Stuart Bell Second Church Estates Commissioner 6:51, 28 February 2007

I well remember a story about how Winston Churchill sat in the gardens of No. 10, dictating to his secretary the words, "I had not intended to intervene in this debate". I certainly did not intend to intervene, but it is an important debate on an important subject. It is a matter for the Government, and it has been subject to consultation and amendment. It has been severely trawled by the media and it has attracted a great deal of attention in the country.

Photo of Steve Pound Steve Pound PPS (Rt Hon Hazel Blears, Minister without Portfolio), Cabinet Office

Like me, my hon. Friend will have listened with great interest to the contribution of Mr. Heath, in which he discussed local accountability. Will my hon. Friend tell us, on the basis of his considerable experience in local and national government, what knowledge he has of the marvellous world of local accountability which apparently exists in the probation service at the present time?

Photo of Stuart Bell Stuart Bell Second Church Estates Commissioner

I have worked for 23 years and more with the probation service in Middlesbrough. It is an excellent service, and it works extremely well with those with whom it must deal. As a Member of Parliament, I have the closest relationship with it. I listened with great interest to the speech by Mr. Heath, as I know that he had not mugged up on the subject before yesterday. He had to work extremely hard to gain the knowledge that he put before the House of Commons on a great parliamentary occasion.

Photo of David Heath David Heath Shadow Leader of the House of Commons, Shadow Spokesperson (Cabinet Office)

As the hon. Gentleman referred to the subject, may I state that I have represented my party on home affairs for quite a few years? Before doing so, I was chairman of a police authority, and before that I was leader of Somerset county council, which had responsibility for the probation service, so I think I know one or two things about the subject.

Photo of Stuart Bell Stuart Bell Second Church Estates Commissioner

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, but I can reveal a secret. I was in the Tea Room yesterday when he stated that he was mugging up on the subject at the last moment. That may be one of the secrets of the Tea Room, which I overheard from him. I am sure that his knowledge of the subject is deep. I would not wish to stand in the House of Commons and say that a Liberal Member of Parliament making a speech on the Floor of the House did not speak with the utmost sincerity, based on the greatest possible knowledge of the subject.

Over 23 years in the House—24 years now—one of the things that I learned early on was sincerity. Are the speakers on both sides of the House speaking with the utmost sincerity? I have found, much to my regret, that on many occasions that has not been the case. I am sure that if there is a feeling that the Bill may give the Government some difficulty—

Photo of Steve Pound Steve Pound PPS (Rt Hon Hazel Blears, Minister without Portfolio), Cabinet Office

Nobody could doubt the utter sincerity of my hon. Friend. Is he implying by his comments that, heaven forfend, there may be an element of opportunism in some of the opposition to the Bill?

Photo of Stuart Bell Stuart Bell Second Church Estates Commissioner

I would not wish, after 24 years of never having been called to account—

Photo of Stuart Bell Stuart Bell Second Church Estates Commissioner

Time passes quickly, even in the House. It passes even more quickly when one is enjoying oneself, and more quickly still when one is able to make an impromptu speech. The best speeches come from the heart, as this one does.

Photo of Tom Levitt Tom Levitt PPS (Rt Hon Hilary Benn, Secretary of State), Department for International Development

My hon. Friend will have noticed that the Back Benches of the official Opposition were empty throughout the major part of this afternoon's debate, and that that party had no view on the key amendments and clauses that the House was discussing. Does that not suggest that, having not been present for most of the debate, opposing the Bill on Third Reading is indeed opportunist?

Photo of Stuart Bell Stuart Bell Second Church Estates Commissioner

I am not entirely sure whether the word "opportunism" is unparliamentary or otherwise, but opportunism in a debate such as this on a matter such as this would indicate a great deal of opportunism.

I am told that many of my own hon. Friends intend to vote against the Government on Third Reading. I have to tell them with the utmost sincerity that they were never sent to the House to vote against a Labour Government. They will get no thanks from their supporters in their constituency. I surmise that at the end of the day they will get no support from the probation services. They will certainly get no support from their right hon. and hon. Friends who have supported the Government and who continue to support the Government.

Photo of Paul Farrelly Paul Farrelly Labour, Newcastle-under-Lyme

Does my hon. Friend recognise that a number of us who voted against Second Reading and for an amendment this afternoon work closely with our probation services and are genuinely concerned about how the knee-jerk privatisation of part of the service will follow through to improving reoffending rates? We have not heard that argument made.

Photo of Stuart Bell Stuart Bell Second Church Estates Commissioner

What is proposed is not a privatisation. The essence of Parliament and of debate is for all those points to be made, as my hon. Friend made them, but at the end of the day the Government must make a decision and must expect that, as they have a majority, the House will support that decision. If my hon. Friend intends to vote against Third Reading, he ought to reconsider. He should ask himself whether he has made the points sincerely on behalf of those who have approached him—

Photo of Clive Betts Clive Betts Labour, Sheffield, Attercliffe

Will my hon. Friend make clear an important point that the Home Secretary made earlier, which all our colleagues may not have heard? He made it clear that services will not be required to be put out to the private or voluntary sector. What will be required is a test of which would be the most suitable provider, whether that be in the voluntary, private or public sector, according to the same principles of best value as most of us supported in respect of local government.

Photo of Stuart Bell Stuart Bell Second Church Estates Commissioner

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point.

Photo of Stuart Bell Stuart Bell Second Church Estates Commissioner

I am sorry—I did not hear the hon. Gentleman's point. Would he like to repeat it?

Photo of Patrick Cormack Patrick Cormack Chair, Northern Ireland Affairs Committee, Chair, Northern Ireland Affairs Committee

I am delighted to repeat it. Was the hon. Gentleman, in his reply to Paul Farrelly, advocating party before conscience?

Photo of Stuart Bell Stuart Bell Second Church Estates Commissioner

If the hon. Gentleman, who has sat in this place for longer than I have, wishes this Parliament to become an Italian Parliament where anyone votes in any way they like on any issue—

It being Seven o'clock, Mr. Deputy Speaker put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair, pursuant to Order [this day].

Question put:—

The House divided: Ayes 293, Noes 268.

Division number 62 Orders of the Day — Schedule 5 — Repeals

Aye: 293 MPs

No: 268 MPs

Aye: A-Z by last name

Tellers

No: A-Z by last name

Tellers

Question accordingly agreed to.

Bill read the Third time, and passed.

Photo of Alan Haselhurst Alan Haselhurst Deputy Speaker and Chairman of Ways and Means

Order. I remind the House that there is other business to be done, so if hon. Members are not staying for the petition and the debate on maggots, please leave immediately.