Offender Management Bill

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, for his apology in relation to what he said on two or three occasions last time the Committee met. It is clear that 60 per cent differs very greatly from what is less than 2 per cent of the London probation staff, and no reference is made to front-line staff. Indeed, front-line staff will not be affected by any redundancies. The posts are being considered for redundancy from within senior management but will not necessarily amount to 61. I am very grateful to the noble Lord for apologising for misleading the Committee. Court work has been an area of particular interest and concern as the Bill has progressed through the other place and here. I remind the right reverend Prelate that Clause 4—an amendment which was made in the other place—now gives real relief. It goes directly to the point that he makes. Clause 4(2) states: "““In this section ‘restricted probation provision’ means probation provision which—""(a) is made for a purpose mentioned in section 2(1)(a) or (b); and""(b) relates to the giving of assistance to any court in determining the appropriate sentence to pass, or making any other decision, in respect of a person charged with or convicted of an offence””." That provision will stay in place unless and until it is changed by an affirmative resolution made by both Houses. Therefore, the assurance that the right reverend Prelate seeks in relation to pre-sentence reports is catered for. Several Members of the Committee mentioned an anxiety. It was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, echoed by the noble Baroness, Lady Linklater, and supported by the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham. There is no difference between us on the necessity to eradicate any form of conflict of interest. However, the right reverend Prelate is right that one cannot legislate for that in the way that is proposed. I say to the Committee as lightly as I can that some in the voluntary sector assert that the Probation Service already has the opportunity both to write reports and to carry out the work. Some in the voluntary sector believe that they could do that work more effectively and appropriately and achieve better outcomes. Because there is no lever to oblige the Probation Service to act in partnership, it does not have the opportunity to do so. Those not in the public sector, particularly those in the voluntary sector, have asserted that there is a monopoly through which the Probation Service is able to write the reports and then to guarantee that it—a public sector body—also does all the work. I am not saying that one side or the other is right. However, it depends on where you stand as to whether you think there is a conflict of interest here. We want no one to have that conflict of interest. I understand that there is genuine anxiety about the risks of a conflict of interest arising if one organisation—no matter which it happens to be—both proposes and provides outcomes for offenders. There is concern that its advice might be skewed towards those outcomes which it provides. But bearing in mind what I have just said, we may be making too much of this. After all, we have that situation under the current arrangements. A number of safeguards are therefore in place to ensure that pre-sentence reports are developed appropriately. First, when the court requests a pre-sentence report it also provides an indication of the expected sentencing outcomes, so that the report can be focused accordingly. Secondly, the report must then adhere to national standards, which we will discuss in more detail under a later set of amendments. Thirdly, there is clear guidance on the type and structure of report to be provided, based on the seriousness of offence and appropriate response. More generally, the development of a more holistic performance management framework, coupled with the introduction of commissioning and contractual relationships, will bring greater transparency to the process and make it easier to spot any potential difficulties which may arise. However, I understand that there is still anxiety that these risks might increase if non-public sector providers were involved. As I have indicated, I am not sure that that is the case, but I understand that anxiety. Certainly, all the standards and guidance I have just mentioned would apply to all providers, from whichever sector they came. It is absolutely critical that we have parity of treatment. But in any case, as I indicated, non-public sector providers will not advise courts in the foreseeable future. As I made plain, that is the effect of Clause 4, which prevents the Secretary of State contracting with a non-public body for the giving of assistance to courts. This restriction can be lifted only by means of an order subject to affirmative resolution. I assure the Committee that before that could be done, one would have to produce cogent information to persuade both Houses that it was appropriate. The statutory restriction does not cover the Parole Board. However, this area of work is covered by the commitment we have previously given; namely, that for the next three years we will let contracts for offender management only with the public sector. Advising the Parole Board is an important area of probation work, but the service produces far fewer parole reports than it does court reports, and we think that the risks of genuine conflicts of interest are fewer. However, if the Government ever seek to lift the restriction in Clause 4, I accept that the conflict of interest point will need to be addressed. But it will require more than a clause in this Bill. It will require practical measures which take account of the state of the market, the nature of the providers, the contractual provisions, incentives, performance management arrangements and so on. The Government would need to provide details on these issues in order to secure the support of the House. If I have learnt anything, I have learnt that much. However, we are not yet at that point. It is helpful to have the opportunity to discuss these issues, but the clause is neither necessary now, nor does it provide sufficient safeguards for the future. On that basis I invite the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, to withdraw the amendment, confident, as she must be, that these important issues would need to be addressed.