Schedule 1
Offender Management Bill
5:15 pm
James Brokenshire (Shadow Minister (Homeland Security), Home Affairs; Hornchurch, Conservative)
We move to some of the more detailed provisions on the functions and operations of the probation trusts. I have some more general questions and queries on the schedule as a whole, Mr. Atkinson, but if I am able to catch your eye and if the debate does not wander too widely I hope to raise those in a stand part debate.
Amendment No. 7 would change the minimum number of appointees for the probation trust. To a large extent it is a probing amendment to find out how the Government arrived at the number of four and, more generally, to probe the constitution of the membership. It raises various questions. Under the Bill, a probation trust will have a chairman and no fewer than four members will be appointed by the Secretary of State. A chief executive will also be appointed, but we shall come to that role in due course.
It would be of benefit to the Committee and more generally if the Minister were to explain how the process is intended to operate. Will there be an automatic transfer of existing probation board members if, as the Minister said, it is intended to take a gradualist approach in converting the probation board to a probation trust, or is it intended to have a more general re-advertisement for its membership? What requirements will there be for the chairman and ordinary members to have expertise, training or other qualifications?
Although the Secretary of State will have wide-ranging powers to appoint the relevant members, it would not be unreasonable to ensure clarity and certainty by providing that members who are appointed should have relevant experience. The Bill seems to be silent on that matter, and I would be grateful if the Minister explained the Government’s thinking. The Minister may say that he wants as broad a range of people as possible—indeed, he has probably said so already—but it is obviously important to understand the basis on which selection would take place and whether it is envisaged that qualifications, expertise, training or other requirements would inform the decision-making process. We have already touched on the question of diversity. I am sure that that, too, will be relevant.
The chairman and the other board members will be appointed by the Home Secretary. My question is about the pool of resources from which he chooses. The question was raised earlier this afternoon, and mentioned in debates last week, whether including specific lists in the Bill would be appropriate, and particularly whether it would restrict or frame the choices.
A specific issue needs to be addressed in the context of the relationship between the probation trusts and the magistrates and judiciary—a point to which hon. Members have already alluded in their more general comments on clause 4. None the less, it is worth examining the question in further detail. Turning Point highlighted the specific importance of magistrates in its briefing notes. It said:
“Magistrates currently play a central role in short prison sentences and the bulk of community sentences. The National Offender Management Bill proposes ending the statutory requirement for the judiciary to be represented on Probation Boards. However no alternative representation has been considered. If judges are not fully involved in the probation service, their confidence in alternatives to prison will decline.”
I know that certain changes have happened in this field, but that view highlights concern about the implications if there is not an established link between the activities of probation trusts and the magistrates. If a formal link is not intended, as in our amendmentNo. 8, what do the Government propose? What arrangements do they envisage to promote that consultation and, indeed, confidence between magistrates and probation trusts? When magistrates give community sentences, for example, they have a relationship with the probation trust and a confidence that services will be provided appropriately. Therefore, magistrates can have confidence in the decisions that they have made.
Some people have highlighted a concern about the relationship between community sentences and other forms of disposal. I am sure that the Minister would not be happy if an inadvertent consequence of the Bill would be to add to one of his other problems, such as the ever-burgeoning prison estate, which he is trying to manage. The overcrowding of prisons and, therefore, the need for community sentences to be viewed with confidence is key to the decisions that magistrates make—based on the facts before them—as to the appropriate disposal for a particular offence. That is assuming that the offence gets before the magistrates and is not dealt with in some summary way, but we will have that debate on another occasion and it may well not be ruled in order in this context.
Comments also touch on the need for confidence in the system in ensuring local and locally accountable solutions. Rainer made the point well in its briefing note:
“Rainer believes that both probation trusts and other providers contracted to carry core offender management should have strong links with the local community, criminal justice system and particularly the judiciary. Probation Boards are currently required to include board members from amongst local magistrates and local authorities. Rainer believes that such links should be maintained and, indeed, widened to ensure that all agencies that have a core role to play in public protection and reducing reoffending are regularly involved in planning offender management. Trusts should appoint an advisory group composing representatives from key partners”—
the note goes on to list them.
I note that the Minister is prepared to consider the concept of an advisory board. There is a need to ensure that there is some sort of direct link with the community. Although the Minister has said that probation trusts are intended to be wider in their viewpoint, they will not necessarily be linked to a specific geographical location. Indeed, they may be encouraged to partner with other probation trusts or to develop certain specialisations that might have wider application.
That said, I still take it from the Minister that, at least currently, the geographical link is intended to be maintained by way of the contractual arrangements. In principle, a particular probation trust may be responsible for probation services in a particular geographical area. Therefore, my hon. Friends and I think that there is a need to maintain some form of established link with the community represented—from within which the probation services are to be provided—to ensure accountability and to ensure that local conditions are properly reflected. Obviously, the most effective way of doing that is to have on the probation trust members of the community, who will reflect its needs and aspirations. That is reflected in amendment No. 27, in which we suggest that a probation trust should be chaired by a judge of the High Court or Crown court to maintain judicial integrity. It also suggests that the remaining members of the board should include at least one of the persons listed—a district judge, a member of the local police authority, a qualified psychiatrist from the local health trust or a member of the local authority.
That is not prescriptive; we are saying not that members should come only from that list but that at least one member should. That would ring-fence a local connection in a probation trust. There is no such latitude in the Bill and all we have had is an indication from the Minister that he will consider setting up some sort of advisory board or link. I am sure that we shall return to the need for a local connection again and again, and I hope that the Minister explains his thinking even if we do not agree on how that connection should be provided.
It is important that members of probation trusts have the widest possible experience of the justice arena and a local community background. Through the amendments we seek to promote such a structure and build confidence in the judiciary, and greater partnership and shared responsibility between agencies and relevant bodies to provide a better service within the framework of the Bill.