New Clause 3
Offender Management Bill
12:00 pm
Gerry Sutcliffe (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Home Office; Bradford South, Labour)
I am grateful to the hon. and learned Gentleman for proposing the new clause, which provides an opportunity to debate the crucial matter of standards under the arrangements set out in the Bill.
Proposed subsections (1) and (2) would require the Secretary of State to set out in regulations the standards to be achieved by providers of probation services, particularly but not only in relation to the provision of reports to courts and the Parole Board. The new clause would also require regulations to provide for the imposition of financial penalties on providers who fail to meet the standards.
Of course I understand the concerns behind the new clause. We agree fully on the need for standards to apply to providers and for penalties to apply if standards are not met, but we do not believe that the legislative approach is not the right way to go about it. The overall priorities for the delivery of probation services will be set out each year in a published national commissioning framework. The national prioritiesin the framework will underpin the regional commissioning plans, which will also be public documents. The priorities will be informed by the consultation process that we discussed under clause 2.
In delivering the priorities, providers will be required to meet national standards, which are already in place and set out what we expect all providers to achieve. They do not have legislative status, and that is right. They are operationally focused and we need flexibility to amend them as necessary. A requirement to meet the standards will be set out in contracts and failure to meet them will incur penalties. The action to be taken in the event of such a failure will vary according to its seriousness and the reasons for it. Incentives and sanctions are being designed and agreed and they will, in time, include financial penalties. However, they are a matter for negotiations with providers.
The hon. and learned Gentleman’s concern about court reports has been expressed previously. We believe that there will be no conflict of interest for private companies writing pre-sentence reports, which will be done under the strict guidelines that are already in place. If concerns are raised or an anomaly is noted, they will be dealt with by the regional offender manager. The awarding of a sentence will remain entirely at the discretion of the sentencer.
The hon. and learned Gentleman went on to discuss how private providers of probation services mightbe held accountable for their performance. The requirement on private providers of correctional services, as commissioned by NOMS, to report their performance will be the same as the requirements on the public sector. Private sector providers will report to regional and national commissioners in the same way as public sector providers do and as existing private sector prisons already do. We believe that the safeguards are in place and that they should be contract related and in the guidelines. We certainly believe that serious failures ought to incur penalties, including financial ones. That is the right way to tackle the issues.
Legislation, even secondary legislation, is too inflexible; we cannot respond easily to changing needs, for example, as identified in the annual consultationor in negotiations between providers and the commissioner. Legislation is also centralising—a criticism that has been levelled at the Bill—and would stifle local flexibility and, potentially, innovation. On that basis, I hope that the hon. and learned Gentleman will agree to withdraw his new clause.