Edward Garnier (Shadow Minister (Home Affairs), Home Affairs; Harborough, Conservative)

Good morning, Mr. Bayley. In discussing the clause I wish to concentrate on one aspect of the Secretary of State’s ability to spend money. Subsection (1) gives him the power to make payments to a probation trust or

“towards expenditure incurred by any other person for any purpose falling within the probation purposes.”

One of the probation purposes that should concern him and anyone else providing probation services is, as stated in clause 1(1)(c),

“the supervision and rehabilitation of persons charged with or convicted of offences”.

As the Minister will know, the problem of reoffending is caused partly by the innate characters of the people who become defendants in the criminal justice system and partly by the system’s inability to re-educate, or indeed to educate at all, those in its care whether inside or outside custody. As my party discovered during the informal evidence session that we arranged last week, there is a huge absence of speech therapy for people in the care of the criminal justice system. [Interruption.] Does the hon. Member for Wrexham want to intervene?

Ian Lucas (Wrexham, Labour)

I merely point out that the reason there are no speech therapists is that when the hon. and learned Gentleman’s party was in power before 1997 there was an absence of training.

Edward Garnier (Shadow Minister (Home Affairs), Home Affairs; Harborough, Conservative)

That may or may not be true. I am not an expert on what happened before 1997. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will tell us in a moment. He may well agree with what I am about to say.

During our informal evidence session we heard the views of Lord Ramsbotham on the need for speech therapy services to be given greater emphasis. If I may, Mr. Bayley, I shall try to paraphrase those views as best I can for the benefit of the Committee. I believe that that will better inform the Committee about one way in which the clause should be implemented if it stands part of the Bill.

Hugh Bayley (York, City of, Labour)

Order. If may help the hon. and learned Gentleman, I say first that I hope that the quotation will be short. Secondly, I remind him that the clause is on the mechanics of making payments to providers of probation services, not the details of each and every thing for which payments may be made.

Edward Garnier (Shadow Minister (Home Affairs), Home Affairs; Harborough, Conservative)

I am sure that you are entirely right, Mr. Bayley. Let me therefore try to analyse the clause so that the discussion complies with your advice.

The title of the clause is “Power to make grantsfor probation purposes”. As I explained, one of the probation purposes is to rehabilitate, as set out in clause 1(1)(c), and one thing that is preventing the rehabilitation of offenders is the absence of adequate education. I am not making a criticism; that is simply a fact. During people’s treatment by the criminal justice system either in or outside prison or young offender institutions, there is a lack of education. That may have something to do with the type of people who come into the system, many of whom were absent from school for all sorts of reasons. Many of them come from broken homes or have been adversely affected by drug addiction or other social problems. Nevertheless it seems uncontroversial to say that about 70 per cent. of those who come into the custody system are illiterate and innumerate, as, sadly, are the same percentage of those who leave.

When we give the Secretary of State the powerto make grants for probation purposes, he ought to consider to what end the huge sums that he will have at his disposal should be deployed. If he makes payments to a probation trust or towards any other expenditure incurred for any of the probation purposes, one of the things that the Secretary of State ought to take into account when he is enjoying the powers under clause 5 is the poor state of language and comprehension services. That was one of the many points made by Lord Ramsbotham in the informal evidence session.

I see, Mr. Bayley, that your mouth is half open. I do not know whether that is because you are stifling a yawn or because you are about to give me further advice. I will pause, because I do not want to get on the wrong side of you.

Hugh Bayley (York, City of, Labour)

Order. I do not want to preventany member of the Committee from raising matters relevant to the services provided in prisons by contractors so engaged. However, the hon. and learned Gentleman might find that discussion of the nature of services provided is more appropriately raised under the next clause, on which he has an amendment about the qualifications of people contracted to provide services. That would allow for a discussion that is in order. Now, under clause 5, I am happy to have a debate about the nature and terms of the contracts for making grants—a debate about the money processes, not about all the services that those contracts might purchase. I hope that that is helpful.

Edward Garnier (Shadow Minister (Home Affairs), Home Affairs; Harborough, Conservative)

At least I know how your mind is working, Mr. Bayley, which is helpful.

I want to have the discussion. Whether we have it under clause 5 or clause 6 is wholly immaterial to me. What struck me on reading clause 5 was that the discussion was relevant. If your view is different, I accept that as the view of the Committee. Therefore, I will resist making further remarks about the discrete area of spending until clause 6, when I will come back to it, either under the amendment or in a stand part debate. However, I have marked up the issue for discussion and the Minister is no doubt rapidly preparing remarks that will be wholly in agreement with mine.

Hugh Bayley (York, City of, Labour)

I am grateful to the hon. and learned Gentleman. I am certain that we are going to have such a discussion shortly. I remind the Minister, before calling him, that we shall discuss the business of speech therapy and possibly similar matters that the hon. and learned Gentleman wished to raise when we come to clause 6.

Gerry Sutcliffe (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Home Office; Bradford South, Labour)

Good morning, Mr. Bayley, and to the Committee. To reinforce your ruling, you are quite right that the mechanics of clause 5 concern the power that the Secretary of State can have. Under clause 3 we discussed contractual arrangements being put in place. That is how we see spending taking place. However, other occurrences, such as wanting to do a pilot project on research, for instance, mean that we want funding flexibility for such purposes. Clause 5 is a simple mechanism to allow us that flexibility, and I hope that the Committee will accept that it can stand part ofthe Bill.