Clause 4
Offender Management Bill
4:45 pm
James Brokenshire (Shadow Minister (Homeland Security), Home Affairs; Hornchurch, Conservative)
We move on to the power to establish probation trusts and the authority that is given to the Home Secretary by order to establish a probation trust, to alter its name and, ultimately, to dissolve it.
We seem to be continuing the theme of the top-down approach, in that this would see the Home Secretary acquire powers that are currently vested in probation boards. I hope that the Minister will be able to assist the Committee by answering my questions. If I understood him correctly this morning, he anticipates that the first probation trust will come into effect in April 2008. He mentioned the figure 42, which, I think, was the total number of trusts. Will he clarify whether a maximum number is envisaged, how they will be set up and what sort of rolling programme he has in mind for their establishment?
One thing that is made clear in the explanatory notes rather than on the face of the Bill is the fact that it is not intended that a probation trust should be attached to a specific geographical area, which suggests that trusts will be nationwide rather than being anchored to a particular locality or geographical area. If that is the case, the Minister needs to explain how the system will operate. It has been suggested that there might be competition between probation trusts. Again, how will that operate if there is no geographical issue? And how will the framework or terms of reference be encapsulated with regard to how trusts are intended to operate? If there is no local link, which is what I understand by the reference to there being no geographical link, how will the locality issues be assumed within the system?
Many hon. Members have stressed the need for the provision of local services to maintain the positive aspects of rehabilitation and local input in the system. However, that does not seem to be assured in the Bill and the explanatory notes. The Minister might say that it could be stressed in the contractual arrangements or the orders establishing probation trusts, but the importance of local links is loud and clear, particularly for charitable and voluntary organisations, which are key players. Maintaining a permanent link is the glue of the system, which is important to its stability.
It has been said that the purpose of the trusts will be specified in the establishing orders mentioned in clause 4(1)(a). Those orders will include contracts for probation purposes, but not exclusively—subsection (2) states that they will include those purposes. Will the Minister explain what other purposes are envisaged for probation trusts? Will the purposes extend to prison services, so that we might have the reverse of the previous situation with the Prison Service being able to provide probation services? I look forward to the Minister’s response on that point.
Subsection (3)(b) mentions the possibility of other specified activities being carried out “anywhere in the world”. I wondered whether that was a new land grab by the Home Office to extend the extraterritoriality of its powers, but I understand that it relates to the “service courts” mentioned in paragraph (b)(i). Will the Minister confirm that that means courts martial or similar, or does it have another meaning? It is not a phrase that I have come across in this context, and clarification is needed of what is intended and whether those courts are why subsection (3)(b) refers to activities “anywhere in the world”. Are probation trusts to have that strange extended reach given to them?
There are various order-making powers in the clause, and subsection (4) contains the ability to restrict probation trusts in certain ways by prescribing limited activities for them. Will the Minister explain why that was felt to be required? One would have thought that the general flexibility of the clause would be sufficiently wide to give such latitude. Is the idea to create a geographical or other framework? I look forward to confirmation of the intention behind the subsection.
On a technical note, subsection (5) states:
“A purpose so specified which relates to the making or performance of contracts includes the carrying out of any activities relating to a contract of a relevant kind (including activities taking place before it is made or after it is terminated).”
The explanatory notes state that that power is needed to allow probation trusts to bid for contracts and deal with post-completion issues. However, bids might not lead to contracts. A bidder does not know whether they will be successful, because they are tendering. The clause and explanatory notes seem to suggest that the power is needed because of activities occurring before a contract is made.
I have a technical concern—if a contract is not made, as will be the case for unsuccessful tenders, is there a gap in the wording? Should the provision refer to prospective contracts as well as contracts? We require clarification whether the additional power is needed by probation trusts in order to make bids. Whatever we may feel about the general nature of the issue, it would be odd from a technical perspective if a probation trust were to act ultra vires in connection with unsuccessful contracts, but were protected in relation to successful tenders. There are certain questions that relate to the clarity of the intention behind the clause. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s answer to my specific points.