Offender Management Bill

rose to move, as an amendment to Motion A, at end insert ““but do propose the following amendments to Commons Amendment No. 8A in lieu— "8B: Line 4, leave out ““the other person”” and insert ““the probation trust, or another local lead provider””""8C: Line 5, at end insert-""““(3B) The probation trust, or another local lead provider, shall engage with other partners in the local strategic partnership to agree and implement local area agreements.""(3C) The regional commissioner shall ensure that the contract with the local lead provider enables the obligations under the provisions of subsection (3B) to be fulfilled.””””" The noble Baroness said: My Lords, Motion A1 is an amendment to Motion A. The Minister said with flattering tones that I had managed to achieve in some elegant way all that I could expect to achieve. Well, no, what I have achieved is only what the Government sought to achieve by way of reassurance to their honourable friends in another place. However, I accept that the Minister has done as much as the Government are prepared to do. I therefore make it clear at the outset that my amendments were tabled only as probing amendments and remain so. I shall not be inviting my noble friends to divide the House on this matter. For us, the core issue in the Bill is our objection to the Secretary of State’s plans to take central control of the commissioning of probation services. We prefer local control by local people, who know best what suits their needs. The House agreed with us at Report on 27 June and passed amendments to give effect to that objective. The Government today seek to overturn those amendments after a vote in another place. The Government have argued that if they are not allowed to give the Secretary of State centralised control, nothing will change—that probation trusts cannot be trusted to extend contracts for the delivery of probation services more widely to private contractors and to the third sector. We had that full debate at Report. The Government therefore ignore the vehicle for change that they seek to impose in any event: the new business-based membership of the probation trusts, which will rise, phoenix-like, from the ashes of the probation boards. If the Government trusted their own new system for appointing members of probation trusts, surely they should be able to give them the power to commission services, instead of holding that power centrally in the hands of the Secretary of State. We have the extraordinary spectacle of the Government changing the membership of the trusts so that they will be business-focused, and then undermining them immediately by legislating to give the overall power for commissioning to the Secretary of State. What do the Government say in their defence? They say, ““Well, we do not really mean it. Despite what the Bill says, something different will happen. We will delegate our centralised power to probation trusts sometimes, perhaps often, perhaps as a matter of practice””. The terminology has changed, and at times elided, in our debates. The Government wrote to their Members of Parliament in another place before the Commons’ consideration of Lords amendments last week to put that into print. The noble and learned Baroness has summarised that very efficiently and effectively today, for which I thank her. However, it is right to quote from that letter today, because not all noble Lords will have had the opportunity to see it. I have been able to show it to one or two noble Lords. It has also been posted on the website of the National Association of Probation Officers, so it is a matter of public record although not publicly seen. I shall quote selectively from it, as one does from such letters, but I hope to highlight the matters on which we agree, not disagree. It says: "““We see commissioning as a national, regional and local activity, with the local level playing a crucial role … Some very specialist, low-volume, high-cost services may be commissioned on a national basis. But commissioning at the national level will generally focus on setting the overall objectives, standards and targets for the system””." Mr Straw went on to claim that the government amendments tabled last week in another place would enable the Secretary of State to delegate his responsibility for commissioning, "““to the probation trust, or another lead provider, and””—" he underlines the following— "““this is what will happen in practice””." I accept that that is a considerable advance on the Government’s position both at Third Reading in another place and subsequently in debates in this House, but it still does not change the fact that the Bill puts the power for commissioning centrally in the hands of the Secretary of State. I also accept from what the Minister has said that the Government have given assurances, which are on the record. No doubt Parliament will seek to hold the Government to account if they decide to do otherwise. This matter was debated very thoroughly indeed in another place last week. Unlike the amendment on which noble Lords have just voted, this amendment had a fair and full hearing. Several of the Minister’s honourable friends questioned Mr Hanson, the Minister in another place, very closely—at col. 360 on 18 July. They asked in particular that the structure that was set out in Mr Straw’s letter of 17 July, from which I have just quoted, should be in the Bill. As the Minister has said today, Mr Hanson responded—at col. 366—by giving a commitment that he would look further into the possibility of putting this policy statement into the Bill. The Minister tells us today that the Government have thought about it but think that it is neither necessary nor appropriate to put it into the Bill. My amendments were tabled with the specific objective of ensuring that these matters were discussed today. Unusually, I tabled them not because I want them to be in the Bill but because I do not. I do not feel that they advance the Bill further towards the purer objective that I seek: that there should be local control. I sought instead to give this House the opportunity to hear what the Minister in another place said in the debate last week and to hear from the Minister in this place the assurances that she has given today. The amendments were therefore tabled to achieve completeness in the debate, but not to achieve the complete satisfaction that would be arrived at only if the Government had accepted them. But there comes a time in the debates between both Houses on matters of principle when we know at some stage that we on these Benches have to say that we have presented our case and that we disagree on principle. Because we are not yet the elected House, these are the times when we have to reflect carefully as to whether we proceed further. That may change in the future, but today is today. On the basis that on this matter I do not seek to return the matter to another place, I will not press my Motion. However, at this stage, because of proceedings, I beg to move. Moved, as an amendment to Motion A, Motion A1, at end insert ““but do propose the following amendments to Commons Amendment No. 8A in lieu, Amendments Nos. 8B and 8C””.—(Baroness Anelay of St Johns.)