The hon. and learned Gentleman says that there has been no output from Government about why we want to propose probation trusts instead of the existing probation boards. On Tuesday, when we were discussing, I think, clause 4, I tried to explain why we are setting up the trusts and how we are going to go about it. I refer the hon. and learned Gentleman to the report of Tuesday’s sitting, and I am sure that he will learn something from it. I shall reiterate the position a little, however.

The probation service staff retention issue keeps coming up, and I asked for the facts on that. Although I accept that there is legitimate concern about the future, which has quite rightly been fuelled by a union that represents the many members working in probation, that is one reason why I want to make progress on the Bill and on the further discussions on future provision that will flow from it. There will be no big bang. The question is how to proceed to reduce reoffending. The Bill was not plucked out of the air. It is a result of the Carter report, which I am sure has been read by Opposition Members. That pointed the Government in the direction that we are taking.

On recruitment and retention, the rate at which probation staff leave the service—the attrition rate—dropped from 10.1 per cent. in 2003-04 to 9.2 per cent. in 2005-06. That compares very favourably with the rest of public service. So although individual issues have been raised—my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow mentioned the individual case of the   probation employee who had been in service for25 years—the facts and figures are not consistent with people leaving in droves and being unhappy. I hope that that deals with that point.

On clause 7 and schedule 2, clearly we need to consult further on probation trusts, and we shall. Clause 7 is consequential on preceding clauses in that it provides for local probation boards to be abolishedas the preceding clauses are brought into effect. Subsection (2) gives effect to schedule 2, which contains provisions relating to transfer of property and staff from boards to trusts and to other probation service providers, and between the different probation service providers. It is very straightforward and is consequential on what was decided in clause 4.