Offender Management Bill

My Lords, we have to understand why things are being changed. Local services have had plenty of opportunities over the years to do allthese things. There has not been a great deal to stop them undertaking some of these changes. Some loosening-up changes were undertaken by the previous Government, who made provision for probation to commission more services from outside. We have to ask why it has not happened. We also have to consider—as I considered very carefully—when the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, thanked her supporters, that they would say that, wouldn’t they? It is worth bearing in mind that some of these amendmentslook to some of us, who have been down this track in other areas, like classic public-sector protectionism. However one wraps it up, they have an underlying presumption, I suggest, in favour of public sector providers, rather than having the best person to do particular jobs. If we could have relied on the existing arrangements for providing the most appropriate service provision for offenders, we would not need this legislation, which will enable the best available provider to be obtained for meeting local needs. In meeting those needs, it may well be necessary to commission some specialist services—a good example would be for sex offenders—over an area that is much wider than that covered by the local trust or boards. These amendments would make that extremely difficult so that, through going local, we would actually be denying offenders access to some services. We should be clear about what this Bill represents. It reflects a good deal of—some would say profound—dissatisfaction with the current arrangements, which restrict the range of service providers required to tackle offending behaviour effectively. As in other parts of the public service, we need more contestability. The noble Baroness acknowledged the need for contestability, but her amendments would make that less likely and a wider range of service providers less likely. To effect the changes, the Secretary of State’s powers should not be fettered by these amendments. It is not a question of centralism versus localism. This is about the machinery that is more likely to effect change in circumstances about which there is a lot of dissatisfaction. It is naive to believe that, if this were left to the 42 local trusts, they would all embrace equally, firmly and enthusiastically the concept and principle of a mixed economy of providers. I am surprised that the party opposite, which has accepted contestability in other areas of public service provision, such as the NHS, seems here to be halting and inhibiting that development in criminal justice. A lot of honeyed words have been used during the passage of this Bill about the work of the Probation Service. I support much of its work and the way that many of its staff do an excellent job in extremely difficult circumstances. I spent two years as a Home Secretary’s special adviser and five years as a chairman of the Youth Justice Board. That has given me an opportunity to see up close—and not always comfortably—the culture of some parts of the Probation Service. My noble friend Lord Filkin rightly drew attention to the issue of culture. That is at the heart of this matter. There is a tendency in some parts of the Probation Service to look inwards defensively, and then turn aside from involving outsiders. Some of us have actually seen that in action. It is a sad fact of life. I find it interesting that ACEVO supports the model in this Bill. The voluntary sector has sometimes been on the receiving end of that culture where it has got—and, in some cases, has developed—good services that will benefit offenders but has been thwarted in its attempts to make them available. That is in a culture of localism. This is not an attack on the Probation Service, but it is a strong urging to leave the structure of the Bill as it is on commissioning if we really want to see a mixed economy of providers which will deliver the kind of services that we all acknowledge many offenders need.