Clause 4
Offender Management Bill
4:45 pm
Mark Hunter (Shadow Minister, Home Affairs; Cheadle, Liberal Democrat)
I shall focus my remarks on clause 4 and the specific provision for the creation of probation trusts. I will advance a couple of thoughts as to why I am not convinced that it is the right way forward, and I look forward to the Minister’s response. I have two main areas of concern. The first is the disruption to the service that might ensue from the creation of probation trusts, and the second is the equally important consideration of a lack of local accountability.
I will deal first with the potential disruption to the service. A number of hon. Members have already referred to the fact that NOMS has been established for only a relatively short time, since 2000. There is an argument that it has not had time fully to establish itself before being changed again. Although there is no general dispute that some improvement is required, we have concerns that the wholesale changes in the Bill could result in an increased reoffending rate, rather than the opposite effect, which it is designed to achieve.
There is also the possibility of even more people going missing while on probation, thus adding to the general confusion. With an already high reconviction rate among those on probation of 53 per cent., we cannot afford to risk creating even more confusion.
There are more effective ways of effecting change without unnecessary bureaucratic shifts. We have heard from hon. Members about the practice in Scotland, where community justice authorities of local elected councillors produce plans on how co-operation will be realised and how service delivery can be improved and enhanced.
We are still not clear about how probation trusts will differ from probation boards—I hope that the Minister will address that—except that, according to the papers, they will be more “business-led”. It would be helpful if the Minister could say how business people will be recruited to sit on the trusts and whether there will be some remuneration for the individuals involved. The case for replacing boards with business trusts has not yet been made. Probation boards should be community-led and should be a public service, with the public interest in sight at all times, not their wallets. The move away from probation trusts will stop that from happening.
On the lack of local accountability, probation boards had locally elected councillors and magistrates on them, whereas, according to the proposals, probation trusts will not. We need as many connections with the local community as is practically possible to ensure that the provision is community-led. Replacing boards with trusts will, I fear, mean that there will no longer be any local accountability over how they are run. Local people will no longer have any influence over the probation service or how probation services in their local area are run. I am sure that the Minister and right hon. and hon. Members agree that it is hugely important that the local community should have faith in its probation services, in order to help with the rehabilitation of ex-prisoners and their acceptance into the community after their sentences have been served.
I am sure that there is also broad agreement that magistrates need to be fully involved in the process to ensure that courts are not unwilling to give out community sentences. They need to be assured of their success and effectiveness. I should be grateful if the Minister would address those concerns in his response.