asked Her Majesty’s Government:

Following recent elections to the Scottish Parliament, what plans they have for changes in financial policies with regard to Scotland.

My Lords, the financial arrangements for Scotland are set out in Funding the Scottish Parliament, National Assembly for Wales and Northern Ireland Assembly: A Statement of Funding Policy, published by the Treasury in July 2004. The statement of funding policy will be updated in the normal way as part of the Comprehensive Spending Review, which is due to be published later this year.

My Lords, I start with the assumption that my noble friend has read the Treasury’s latest figures on public expenditure per head. They show that in England the figure is £6,949, while in Scotland it is £8,414. I assume my noble friend will agree that those figures are clearly in need of a change. I recognise that he has a problem in that the only consensus among the leaders of the political parties is that there should be no change—for some reason, they like the formula—but surely my noble friend will accept that in the circumstances the least he can agree is that there should be a review of the current formula to see that we have one based on genuine need. I can assure him that if such a formula were agreed, I would be happy to see the name continue.

My Lords, the House will be relieved on that last point. I was not going to mention the name of the formula, of course.

We have no plans to change the formula at this stage. My noble friend, who is well versed in these issues, will know that the disparities in expenditure are not just due to the formula but reflect other aspects of the details of the expenditure allocations to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. There are also specific considerations in each case. But I hear what he says—he has been pressing for a review for a considerable time. In a sense, the issue is reviewed every time we have a Comprehensive Spending Review because the allocation of resources is determined at that point.

My Lords, as there is nothing sacrosanct about the formula and it was not part of the constitutional settlement between Scotland and the United Kingdom, is it not time, in view of the inequitable distribution of public funding to the territories of England, Northern Ireland, Wales and Scotland, that the Government gave serious consideration to a mechanism other than the existing one for determining what will bring about the equalisation of the state’s capacity to provide services? Would the Minister look with favour on the example of the Australian Commonwealth Grants Commission, which has existed since 1933 and is widely regarded as having produced equitable results all round in that country?

My Lords, of course the Treasury looks at all aspects of expenditure elsewhere that help to enlighten it on how it should proceed for the future, but the noble Lord will recognise that there is a vast difference between organising expenditure for devolved Administrations and organising expenditure in a federal structure, which is the Australian position. The noble Lord will also appreciate that the formula, as he indicated, was not the subject of debate during the time of the decisions with regard to devolution, and he will recognise, too, the strides that this Government are making to ensure that expenditure per head in regions is equalised by a wide range of government policies, which are helping to iron out some of the past inequalities.

My Lords, the Minister will be aware that spending in Scotland is not only higher per capita but also does not shine in value-for-money terms. Will he join me in congratulating the new First Minister for Scotland on publishing the Howat report, which revealed the true horror of the inefficient spending of the years of the Labour/Lib Dem coalition?

My Lords, the House might have wondered just at which stage the Official Opposition would join the Scottish National Party in its attacks on the Government, and we all think of the implications of that for the future in terms of the development of the Opposition’s own policies for the United Kingdom.

Of course there are disparities between the individual countries of the United Kingdom. The noble Baroness will recognise that a very substantial tranche of money was voted for Northern Ireland in the wake of the recent agreement, and the whole House would see the reasons for that and the benefits derived from it. The noble Baroness may think that the case of Scotland merely shows ill judged expenditure, but that is not the experience of many people in England who look to certain aspects of social care, for example, in Scotland that reach higher standards than may be the case elsewhere.

My Lords, in light of the fact that massive contributions have historically been made to the United Kingdom economy by Scotland and Wales and on account of their structural and economic deficiencies, will the Minister kindly give an undertaking that no review would leave either country in a worse financial situation than it is in at the moment? Might I also tempt the House to consider whether, if there is to be a successor to the Barnett formula, it should be named “Barnett 2” or “Barnett revisited”?

My Lords, we have made a determined attempt to improve the ratios of expenditure between the regions in England and have had some success in bringing up to the standards of the best those which in the past have been poorly served. If we had to look at an overall policy for Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, the same principles would obtain. As I have indicated, we are not proposing a wholesale revision. I add the obvious point that it is easier to countenance the concept of a wholesale revision than to deal with the Pandora’s box once it is opened.

asked Her Majesty’s Government:

Whether they will establish a royal commission on the constitution.

My Lords, the Government are not at present proposing to establish a royal commission on the constitution.

My Lords, I thank my noble and learned friend for that reply, which is disappointing but not surprising. Did he see what the Prime Minister-designate was reported as saying in The House Magazine of 21 May 2007? He stated:

“Over the coming months, I want to build a shared national consensus for a programme of constitutional reform that strengthens the accountability of all those who hold power”.

Does he not agree that a royal commission, the establishment of which would ideally be supported by all political parties and go into their general election manifestos, would be precisely the best way of achieving that national consensus? Its terms of reference could cover not just the composition and powers of this House, on which there is a settled view among the great majority of our Members, but the role of the other place, its relationship with the devolved Assemblies and Parliament and, indeed, the funding of political parties.

My Lords, I did not see that article, but I entirely agree with its comments on seeking national consensus, as you would expect. Royal commissions have done an excellent job. I am very glad to see the noble Lord, Lord Wakeham, in his place. As Members of this House will know, his royal commission on House of Lords reform produced an excellent document, but it did not ultimately achieve the basis for consensus which everybody hoped it would. To believe that a royal commission would cover all the things that my noble friend Lord Faulkner of Worcester mentioned and would hope to produce a consensus and a way forward seems optimistic.

My Lords, does not the noble and learned Lord believe that it would have been right if, 10 years ago, the Government had set up a royal commission before they started to dismantle the independence of the judiciary, got rid of his own post of Lord Chancellor, broke down the United Kingdom, changed the electoral system and created a muddled and rejected form of regional government in England? Would it not have been better to have had such a royal commission 10 years ago and, perhaps, it would be better late than never?

Absolutely not, my Lords. We came with a number of very clear ideas on constitutional reform, the Human Rights Act, freedom of information and devolution, and we put them into effect. I am very glad to see the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, who came to his view in favour of an almost wholly elected House of Lords without the benefit of a royal commission.

My Lords, can the noble and learned Lord confirm that it is pure coincidence that his Department for Constitutional Affairs was abolished in the very week that the Prime Minister-designate proposed a written constitution?

Yes, my Lords, pure coincidence.

My Lords, does the Minister not agree that a royal commission would embody the principle which many people are anxious to see returned to our public life—that voting is important but that without proper and structural accountability it is dangerously incomplete? Does he not agree that a royal commission would be preferable to what we will otherwise get, which is constitutional change on a wing and a prayer? These Benches are happy to supply the prayer, but we want to be assured of the quality of the wing.

My Lords, I am very grateful to the right reverend Prelate for the prayer. I wonder whether royal commissions are the appropriate way to deal with constitutional change now and whether there are ways of communicating with the public in a much larger way. I wonder whether bringing together the great and the good and saying this is the way that constitutional reform should take place is the appropriate way to deal with it. I suspect that the day of the royal commission determining what constitutional reform should take place may be in the past. For example, there have been three royal commissions on the press—in 1947, 1960 and 1974. As we all agree, the press is now in a perfect state of grace, but it may well be that three royal commissions did not do that trick.

My Lords, does my noble and learned friend recall the words of the late Lord Wilson of Huyton, who said that royal commissions take minutes and last years? For that reason I commend the proposition to him.

My Lords, I am aware of the words of Lord Wilson. Some royal commissions have achieved a huge amount. Who can forget the seminal royal commission in 1919 on royal commissions themselves? But by and large, as I say, there may be other ways to do constitutional reform.

My Lords, if a consensual constitution is indeed the aspiration of the Lord Chancellor and his colleague the Prime Minister-designate, will he look with favour at the historical example of the Scottish convention, which produced consensus and is lasting? In considering how to advance his goals, will he bear in mind that, because we do not have a written constitution, there has been a propensity to reform in bits and pieces? Somehow these things need to be pulled together, because they interact. Will he also bear in mind that, without entrenchment, the possibility of a standing convention might be given favour, particularly if it involves the public as he suggests it might?

My Lords, I am aware of the achievements of the Scottish Constitutional Convention. There is much that we can learn from it. In some ways, that convention is an indication of the fact that you need to reach wider than a royal commission perhaps can. I also accept that it is important in any constitutional reform to identify its effect on the rest of the constitution. However, I do not agree that that leads to the conclusion that you can reform the constitution only when you can identify all the reforms needed. Noble Lords will recall—many of them were here at the time—that the 1969 convention on the constitution produced by Lord Kilbrandon was useful but ultimately did not provide a blueprint for a way forward. We have as a nation successfully transformed and amended our constitution on a bit-by-bit basis, and we have done it because there is not a written constitution. While I am sure that it is worth while to set out our values in writing, it would be a bad idea to have a written constitution, because it would be too rigid and would have a profound effect on parliamentary sovereignty.

My Lords, notwithstanding the excellent advances made by this Government on the constitution, as described by my noble and learned friend, would he not agree that a few loose ends need tying up, as my noble friend Lord Faulkner indicated? Can I advise my noble and learned friend not only against royal commissions, for the reasons that he has given, but against anything like the Scottish Constitutional Convention, which has produced the kind of dog’s breakfast that ends up with me getting elected to the Scottish Parliament, rather to my surprise? I instead suggest a parliamentary commission consisting of Members of the Commons and the Lords and the three devolved parliaments to look at the constitution in an integrated and comprehensive way. After all, we are experienced in this. Those are the people who could look at the matter effectively.

My Lords, first, I regard the presence of my noble friend here and in the Scottish Parliament as the final and complete endorsement of the Scottish Constitutional Convention. Secondly, a range of bodies need to be considered, and a parliamentary committee is one of them.

asked Her Majesty’s Government:

Whether they propose to revise their process of verifying asylum claims in light of the case of Darfuri refugee Shoman Ahmed Mohammed so as to prevent individuals with valid claims being returned to their homelands under threat of torture or death.

My Lords, I cannot comment on the individual case, which is under consideration by the courts. The Government are committed to meeting their obligations under the refugee convention and have a long history of offering protection to those in genuine need. Accurate, well considered decisions are a key to a robust, fair and firm asylum policy. That is why we are committed to raising the quality of asylum decisions.

My Lords, I thank my noble friend for her Answer, but surely the recent case of Shoman Ahmed Mohammed highlighted the dangers and deficiencies in the current system for assessing asylum claims. He was already at the airport being expelled from Britain and returned to the Sudan when, happily and at the last minute, his lawyers obtained an injunction to prevent his expulsion. Had he been returned to the Sudan, he would have been at grave risk of torture and death. Is it not vital that Her Majesty’s Government immediately re-examine the asylum application system to take into account a much broader range of evidence, including especially that from family members and others close to the asylum seeker who might be at risk of murder? Please will my noble friend ensure that the current defective and ineffective system is re-examined without delay?

My Lords, I remind my noble friend that I cannot comment on that case because it is subject to an appeal; therefore, it would be improper for me so to do. However, I hope that I will be able to reassure him that the new asylum process that we have put in place does in fact do all that he would wish. It heightens and improves the quality, it has enhanced the training, and it ensures that one case worker looks at a case from beginning to end; we believe that the sort of review that my noble friend described has been undertaken and are developing a system that now has far higher quality.

My Lords, perhaps I may take this opportunity of congratulating the noble Baroness on her birthday.

My Lords, I would be delighted if what the noble Lord, Lord Renton, said were true. In fact, for future reference, my birthday is on 19 August.

My Lords, regarding the case of AH and others, in which the period of appeal has now expired, I assume, have the Government decided to accept the appeal verdict and are they now refraining from the option of internal relocation to Khartoum, so that no Darfurian is sent back to that city? Will the noble Baroness accordingly give instructions to have the country report on Sudan amended to take that judgment into consideration and instruct immigration officers who have to consider applications by people from Darfur that those officers should not consider internal relocation to Khartoum as an option?

My Lords, I think that the noble Lord is referring to the recent case of Re AH and others in relation to Sudan. The court found that the Darfuri would not be at risk of persecution or other ill treatment in Khartoum, but, in its interpretation of a legal test on refugee law, the court found that it would be “unduly harsh” to expect a non-Arab Darfuri to relocate to Khartoum, because they were ill-equipped for city living and the conditions which they would be likely to face in Khartoum. That issue is subject to appeal. We do not believe that it is right that someone should be considered to be a refugee simply because, although they could safely relocate within their own country to a place where they would not be at risk of persecution, they would, by doing so, face a drop in living standards to a level experienced by many of their compatriots. That is the issue of law that is subject to appeal.

My Lords, the noble Baroness rightly said that the rules of the House prevented her answering the supplementary question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Janner. Do not the same rules apply to the speech made by the noble Lord in his supplementary question?

My Lords, I have tried to differentiate between the active case and the point of law. The point of law is subject to open debate, but I have tried to explain that I cannot talk about the facts of the case and I hope that all noble Lords will adhere to that procedure, because that is what we are all bound to do in this House.

My Lords—

My Lords—

My Lords, I think that we should hear from the Bishop.

My Lords, in light of the fact that people who are about to be deported quite often have significant medical problems, are the Government willing to review the current principles under which they offer guidance on who should or should not be deported in those circumstances?

My Lords, the right reverend Prelate will know that individuals, at any stage during their application, are able to bring forward fresh information on which determination can be made. If there is such fresh information, consideration can be given to it, but we do not believe that our current policy is either unfair or in any way unjust. It enables people who have valid claims to make them and allows those claims to be properly interrogated.

My Lords, I noted the assurance given by the Minister, for whom I have great respect, about the new asylum model, but is she aware of the particular concern that we have about, for example, Zimbabwean refugees? I refer to the many cases where there is clear evidence that people have literally been taken away at the airport and then either tortured or subjected to profound pressure of various kinds. Those people are still being returned and, in some cases, appeals are being made by the Home Office against the decisions of the courts. Will the Minister therefore please take up the suggestion of her noble friend Lord Janner and have another look at the way that the system is currently operating so that Britain maintains its high reputation for not having any part in the possibility of torture against those who are disliked by wretched and rogue Governments?

My Lords, I reassure the noble Baroness that we are doing everything that we can to ensure that the information that we get on in-country positions is as robust as possible. We are deferring enforced returns of failed asylum seekers to Zimbabwe until the ongoing litigation is finally resolved, so returns are not occurring at the moment. I certainly assure the noble Baroness that we take very seriously the need to preserve our high reputation in relation to asylum seekers, giving them appropriate succour and ensuring that our system is as robust and fair as we can possibly make it.

asked Her Majesty’s Government:

What conclusions were reached about Zimbabwe at the Prime Minister’s meeting with President Mbeki of South Africa on 1 June.

My Lords, the Prime Minister and president agreed that the states in the region had a key role in finding a solution to the crisis in Zimbabwe. The Prime Minister expressed his concern at the situation and reiterated the Government’s support for SADC initiatives and President Mbeki’s leading role. President Mbeki described the progress of his mediation between the MDC and ZANU-PF. The Prime Minister stressed that Zimbabwe’s crisis was one of internal governance and that the United Kingdom remained committed to help, together with international partners, in the stabilisation and economic recovery of a reformed Zimbabwe.

My Lords, is not Africa one of the two main subjects for discussion at the G8 conference, which begins tomorrow, and do not those attending include representative strong leaders from other African countries, who recognise that the Zimbabwe disaster is bad for the whole of Africa and who need our support? Also, has not the German Chancellor said that the policies of Mugabe are not acceptable and called on African countries to use their influence for the good of Zimbabwe’s people? Is not the G8 better positioned to use its influence for the good of the people of Zimbabwe than almost any other organisation one can think of? Could this not give President Mbeki a great opportunity at last, if backed by the G8, to show that he is capable of decisive action?

My Lords, the facts relating to the statements of the German Chancellor and the potential statement of the G8 are absolutely accurate. I hope that President Mbeki will listen to the points that are made with proper and due attention. He says that he is trying to find a means by which the contending parties, including the opposition, can move forward, and that is part of his mission, but he will be in no doubt about the opinion of this country, the European Union or, as I believe we will see in the statement, the G8.

My Lords, is my noble friend aware that President Mbeki’s current mediation efforts are the fifth such initiative since 2000 and that none has so far managed to shift Mugabe or to provide protection for civil rights in Zimbabwe or for those who work peacefully to secure democracy in that country? Will Her Majesty’s Government join President Kufuor and President Kikwete, both African presidents, in recognising that Mugabe treats such quiet diplomacy with contempt and that more direct African pressures are required? As the machinery of state terror is about the only thing that now works in Zimbabwe, does my noble friend agree that those who seek refuge from that repression by coming to this country should not be returned to Mugabe’s Zimbabwe when they are bona fide opponents of that regime, even when the current litigation is concluded?

My Lords, no one can doubt that we are aligned with what President Kufuor and others, including President Kikwete, have said. Indeed, we have gone way beyond anything that they have said. In Africa, we have been widely accused of having engaged in what people have called “noisy diplomacy”, by which I think they mean that we have been outspoken. I see nothing at all wrong in having been outspoken. It is certainly true, as my noble friend Lady Scotland said, that no one is being returned to Zimbabwe at the moment. Those who are entitled to make proper claims for asylum should have their claims treated in exactly the same way as this country historically has always treated claims for asylum, and they should not be subjected to any further peril.

My Lords, did the Prime Minister discuss with President Mbeki the vote by the Pan-African Parliament—by a majority of 149 to 20—to send a fact-finding mission to Zimbabwe? Notwithstanding the fact that that was rejected contemptuously by the Foreign Minister of Zimbabwe, do the Prime Minister and the Government think that President Mbeki and the other leaders of SADC could make a significant move forward if they pressed the ZANU-PF regime to accept that mission?

My Lords, as regards any kind of delegation going to Zimbabwe, it is hard to know what would impress Mugabe. The Prime Minister was completely clear in what he said in South Africa and in his meeting with President Mbeki. He said:

“African governments should also hold other African governments to account. In Zimbabwe, decades of repression have forced up to one third of the country to flee”.

I shall not read further from the quote; it deals with life expectancy and the tragedies and crimes that we know have been committed in that country. No one is in any doubt about the United Kingdom’s position or the overall position of the EU. President Mbeki understands that perfectly.

rose to move, That the third report from the Select Committee be agreed to (HL Paper 104).

The report can be found at the following address: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200607/ldselect/ldprohse/104/10402.htm

The noble Lord said: My Lords, this report proposes permanent arrangements for noble Lords to table Questions for Written Answer, and for Answers to be published, during the Summer Recess, following the experiment last summer. I beg to move.

Moved, That the third report from the Select Committee be agreed to (HL Paper 104).—(The Chairman of Committees.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

House in Committee accordingly.

[The LORD SPEAKER in the Chair.]

Clause 4 [Restriction on certain arrangements under Section 3(2)]:

moved Amendment No. 51:

I speak to Amendments Nos. 51A and 51B which are in my name and that of my noble friend Lady Turner. Amendment No. 51A aims to keep a key public protection function in the public sector and, in so doing, prevent the conflicts of interest which partly led the Government to list court work as a restricted provision.

The Probation Service currently provides impartial, accurate, reliable, skilled and professional advice to assist the parole board in making its decisions on the release of prisoners. Information is provided in writing and verbally and a risk assessment is offered where appropriate. If this function were to be commissioned, there could be an immediate conflict of interest. For example, if the writer were an employee of a company with commercial interests in the outcome, such as tagging or private jails, that would affect the ability of the parole board to carry out its functions. Indeed, in evidence to the Home Affairs Committee in 2005, a representative of the judiciary warned that it could not be involved in a body such as a probation board if competition were introduced into services for courts and therefore, presumably, in prison board decisions.

Although I understand the thinking of the supporters of the amendment, the amendment is effectively an attempt—when you get down to it, whatever the transitional arrangements—to institutionalise in legislation a further set of restrictions on the ability to have non-public service providers provide these services. That is how the amendment is actually framed. The Government are rightly arguing that we need a variety of public service providers. No one disputes that we are moving towards having an enabling state where the Government guarantee coverage of services and the funding of those services but also accept that there should be a mixed range of providers. These amendments would, whatever the transitional arrangements, prevent such activity taking place in another range of services in the probation service.

I remind the Committee that for 60 years we have had in personal services through primary care a load of small business men and women—we call them general practitioners—who have provided public services under contract from the private sector. In return they have also produced profit and loss accounts each year. These people are outside the public service in the public services they provide, but civilisation has not ended. They have been the envy of the world in the primary care provided. I see no reason why we should assume that some of these advances cannot be made also in a wider range of probation services activities.

Perhaps I may be permitted to respond to those remarks by my noble friend. As someone who has put his name to this amendment, I would encourage him not to tilt at windmills. Nothing could be further from my mind in putting my name to the amendment than the motives that he suspects might be lurking somewhere behind it. I put my name to it simply because it re-emphasises yet again that if we are co-operating with others outside the formal public service, it is tremendously important to remember what the priorities are, and to emphasise that in the confusion of tasks which may be expected of them, the key task is the rehabilitation of offenders.

I believe that the noble Baroness, Lady Linklater, was right to press the Government for clarity on Clause 4. On that basis alone I support the way in which she has addressed her amendments. Like the noble Lord, Lord Warner, I approach the clause from the point of view of wishing to see contestability work well and not to inhibit it unless it is absolutely right to do so. There are reasons that can be forcefully adduced for saying that there are some areas where contestability should not be rolled out just yet, if at all. That has been the mainstay of much of our debate during our first days in Committee, in which so many noble Lords have taken part.

The amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Linklater, raises vital issues that have to be resolved if we are to make good progress on the Bill when we reach Report. Clause 4 was a concession from the Government during Report stage in another place, way back on 28 February. It restricts the Secretary of State’s power to award contracts for probation services. In effect, it ring-fences the public service provision of probation services to certain offender management services. That ring-fencing can be removed only by statutory instrument under Clause 12. This amendment appears to extend the ring-fencing to a wider range of probation provision; hence the cautionary note from the noble Lord, Lord Warner.

When these matters were debated in another place, my honourable friend Mr Edward Garnier made it clear that we do not intend to intervene in the Government’s negotiations with others regarding the extension of the protection of services from being opened up to contestability, because we support contestability. However, as a result of the response of the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, and the noble Baroness, Lady Scotland, to amendments during our third day in Committee, I feel that it is necessary to take part in this debate to try to get further clarification. I hope that I will not test the patience of the Committee too much if I simply set out where I believe that clarification needs to be achieved, because it will have a direct impact on how I approach my Amendment No. 99 when we reach Clause 12.

The clarification that I am looking for is as follows. First, I want clarification about the Government’s plans to roll out contestability. Secondly, I want a definition of what is covered by Clause 4. Thirdly, I want to hear the Government's justification for not extending the protection in Clause 4 to other sectors of offender management. Fourthly, I want to hear about the timetabling of their plans to remove Clause 4 by statutory instrument.

I am grateful to both Mr Harry Fletcher from Napo and Mr Stephen Ormerod from Unison for their helpful briefing on these matters. I may not agree with every crossed “t” and dotted “i” in their briefing, but I recognise that, as always, they are so well informed and have the best concerns of good delivery of services at heart.

I appreciate why all the amendments have been tabled. They are put forward on a matter of deeply held principle and are to be admired on that basis. They perform a valuable function, in that they require the Minister today to put clearly on record what services the Government expect to remain in the public sector as a result of the protection given by Clause 4. That is not just a matter of semantics; it is about knowing which services will be put out to contestability and whether the guarantee given by Dr Reid in another place of three years for the survival of Clause 4 has now become a guarantee for a longer period.

On Third Reading, Dr Reid described what I and my right honourable and honourable friends thought was a two-stage roll-out. The two-stage roll-out appeared to be as follows: first, as soon as the Bill is on the statute book, all offender management work, except that covered by Clause 4, would or could be opened to contestability. The Bill clearly gives the Government the power to do that. Whatever other assurances they give, the power is in the Bill. The core services in Clause 4, the second part of the roll-out, would be protected for only three years and Clause 4 would then be removed by the affirmative procedure. He said that the,

“core offender management tasks of the probation service—for example, offender report writing, offender supervision and breach proceedings—will remain in the public sector for the next three years. That is for at least the lifetime of this Parliament. I alluded to that the last time I was here and I make it plain again today. For the next three years, the core tasks of offender management will remain in the public sector”.

Later, he said:

“In short, there is a three-year guarantee for the retention of offender management in the public sector and a double lock meaning that any movement after that will require a vote of both Houses of Parliament”.—[Official Report, Commons 28/2/07; cols 1023-5.]

It was a three-year guarantee.

In Committee in this House, however, the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, stated:

“We will not contract for offender management outside the public sector before 2010. The Clause 4 concession relates only to court work”.—[Official Report, 23/5/07; col. 677.]

That implied that the Clause 4 concession does not cover all offender management. That is what needs to be clarified.

The noble Baroness, Lady Scotland, acknowledged that at least one area of offender management was not covered by Clause 4 protection—that of advising the parole board. Amendment No. 51A, in the name of the noble Baronesses, Lady Gibson of Market Rasen and Lady Turner of Camden, would rectify that. Does the Minister intend to accept the amendment today or to consider bringing back an amendment on Report? On the past statements made by the Government, that would seem the logical thing for them to do. Today, the noble Baroness, Lady Gibson, has made a powerful case. As I said, I shall not get involved in negotiations between the Government and others to delay contestability, but I see the logic and force behind her argument, given the concessions already made by the Government in another place.

What other areas of offender management are not protected by Clause 4? Whatever is covered by the Clause 4 concession, the period of its life seemed to be lengthened by the noble Baroness, Lady Scotland, when she responded on a different amendment during our debates in Committee. She stated that,

“non-public sector providers will not advise courts in the foreseeable future”.—[Official Report, 23/5/07; col. 695.]

I wonder whether the Minister is being very generous and saying that the foreseeable future is only until Mr Brown calls the next election. If so, she is of course in accord with her honourable friends in another place. To me, however, the foreseeable future sometimes seems to be a little further in the distance than that. Perhaps she has no ambition about winning the next election, but we need to know what life this protection is likely to have, and we need clarity on the matter today.

Will the noble Baroness, Lady Linklater, clarify one point? In the context of the amendment, how do we measure rehabilitation? How do we know when rehabilitation has been achieved? Is it achieved over time? What is it? We have talked a lot about it, and I believe that it is absolutely fundamental to the work of the National Offender Management Service. Surely we must all be clear what we mean by it so that we can have a level playing field for contestability.

Perhaps I should start by assuring the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, that I am totally at one with my right honourable friend the Home Secretary, and that I have every intention of doing everything I can to ensure that this Government win the next election, as I am sure the noble Baroness will do from her side of the House. I hope that she will be as successful as she was the last time, and that we will repeat the same position.

The amendments do give us an opportunity to talk about a difficult and important issue, and I very much thank the noble Baroness, Lady Linklater, for tabling them. I am sure she will correct me if I am wrong, but I believe that she very much posits them to enable us to clarify and understand where we actually are rather than for their technical niceties. I hope that by responding to them I will be able to provide the clarity that the Committee needs.

The amendments of the noble Baroness, Lady Linklater, and of my noble friends Lady Gibson and Lady Turner seek to achieve similar ends, albeit by slightly different means. The restriction, which we will debate shortly in more detail, means that the Secretary of State will not be able to enter into a contract with any non-public sector provider for the court work that the Probation Service currently does. The provision could be repealed only after a vote by both Houses of Parliament. However, we added Clause 4 in the other place to meet some very specific concerns about the particularly sensitive area of advice to the courts—advice on which the rest of a sentence might depend. We acknowledge that there are anxieties about possible conflicts of interest. The amendments, of course, go much further.

I should also clarify our reasons for giving that assurance. The assurance reflects our desire to move cautiously, as well as our view that the non-public sector providers do not yet have the experience or expertise necessary for this important core area of work. We want to make it clear that we do not think that this will change in the next three years. My noble friend Lady Gibson made a point about the importance of best value. Best value means looking for the entity or person who is best able to deliver that service. If the public sector is best able to deliver that service, then of course it should continue so to do. Who is best able to perform the service is a judgment that can be made .

I turn first to the amendment in the names of the noble Baroness, Lady Linklater, and the noble Lords, Lord Dholakia and Lord Wallace. Were this amendment to be passed, the only aspect of probation services that could be commissioned directly from a non-public sector provider would be the work which probation does in conditional cautions, giving assistance to persons remanded on bail and giving information to the victims of those charged with or convicted of offences. The noble Baroness clearly could not intend that as there simply would not be a practical basis on which we could move forward.

These areas of work constitute a small proportion of the overall probation workload. If the amendment were passed, virtually all services could be commissioned only from the public sector even if a provider from the charitable, voluntary or private sector were able to demonstrate that it could do a better job. The noble Baroness highlighted some of the areas in which the charitable and not-for-profit voluntary sector is doing a fabulous job, and I know that all of us would wish it to continue doing so. The amendment would make it much more difficult, if not impossible in practice, for services to be commissioned across geographical and organisational boundaries and make it more difficult to create consistency for offenders between prison and probation and to deliver economies of scale in, for example, areas of specialist provision. Because of the way in which the amendment is phrased, my noble friend Lord Warner rightly alerted us to the danger. It would cut us off from an opportunity to use those who could assist in a very beneficial way. The cumulative effect would make it harder for organisations such as Nacro, Turning Point, and Rainer, which have so much to offer, to make their full contribution and to supplement public service probation provision in the way that they, and we, would like.

Is the Minister not forgetting the whole area of interventions? My amendment specifically relates not only to the court services, but also to core management which is inextricably related to the advice in relation to what the court does or may decide. I did not address interventions at all.

The noble Baroness referred, I think, to the community pay-back work and the way in which that can be done. That is intervention.

I hope that the Committee can see that it was our intention to solidify the position that we now have and give a greater degree of certainty, which is why we introduced Clause 4. Perhaps it would be right also to remind the Committee that an amendment which would have had a similar effect to this one was debated extensively in the other place. It was rejected for the reasons that I have just given. It was seen quite clearly as something which would unnecessarily restrict others from coming and helping us in this regard.

I turn now to the amendments tabled by my noble friends Lady Gibson and Lady Turner. Amendment No. 51A seeks to add the work which probation does in relation to the Parole Board in the early release and recall of prisoners. First, let me repeat what I said when we debated conflicts of interest. We have no immediate plans to open up this area of work to competition. We have given a guarantee to Parliament that we will not contract with a non-public sector provider for core offender management work for three years, which includes the provision of assistance to the Parole Board. However, as we discussed during our first day in Committee, probation involvement in the parole process is rigorously governed by the Parole Board Rules 2004. The proposed revision of the Parole Board Rules will see these further strengthened as they take the form of a statutory instrument. If in the future we decide the time is right to open up this area of work, the rules will apply to all providers involved in delivering this work regardless of whether they are from the public, the private or the voluntary sector. As these robust safeguards are already in place, we simply do not believe that the amendment is necessary, although we understand why it has been tabled and why it is necessary for me to repeat these assurances.

Amendment No. 51B seeks to add the management of approved premises to the list of restricted services. Currently there are 104 approved premises in England and Wales, including 14 which are run by voluntary management committees and one by a private sector organisation, so we already have a mixture of management in that regard. As noble Lords know, they are used primarily to supervise high risk of harm offenders on release from custody. Clause 10(5) specifically clarifies that the Secretary of State may use his powers under Clauses 2 to 6 to commission the construction and/or operation of new approved premises. The approach suggested by my noble friends would, with respect, take us backwards from where we are now. The amendment would exclude the private sector while ensuring that the number of voluntary sector providers remains permanently as at commencement. I am not sure that I completely understand the position and I cannot believe that that is what my noble friends want. Their dislike of us using the private sector inappropriately is absolutely clear, but it is not justified on our experience to date. Where we have engaged with the not-for-profit sector and the private sector, we have a number of examples of doing very well indeed—not for ourselves, but for the people for whom we care.

Public protection will be our overriding priority in commissioning all services. That will be especially the case with regard to approved premises, given the types of offenders they contain. Approved premises will continue to be used primarily to supervise offenders released from custody on licence who are assessed as presenting a high or very high risk of harm to the public. I am conscious that the noble Baroness, Lady Howarth, is not in her place—

She is.

The noble Baroness was not there when I last looked, and I am greatly relieved because on the last occasion in Committee she told us powerfully about the role of the Lucy Faithfull Foundation in relation to the management of sex offenders. We have relied on the voluntary sector, which has developed a high degree of specialised expertise in certain areas, to help us in times of difficulty. Moreover, the Probation Service has been extremely grateful for such help and support in the past and I am sure that the service will continue to wish to secure it in the future. So those managing and working in approved premises will monitor offenders’ compliance with their licence conditions, including curfew, enforcing hostel rules and acting upon any evidence of concern as regards offenders’ behaviour. They will need to work closely with offender managers and with partners such as the police within the multi-agency public protection arrangements. Because of this, we will ensure that contracts to run approved premises are awarded to those who can demonstrate that they and their staff are competent in managing high risk of harm offenders. That will be the case whether the provider is from the public, private or voluntary sector.

As I have said, we intend to proceed cautiously. The public sector will continue to take the lead role, and provided its performance meets the requirements, the probation trust will be the lead provider in the probation area. The lead provider will concentrate on the delivery of offender management while sub-contracting much of its intervention work to other providers. But to achieve this, we need a system in place that is sensitive enough to respond to local needs, one that allows every provider to play to their strengths and robust enough to ensure that this vision becomes a reality. The Bill and the commissioning system to be introduced will allow for this. With that in mind, I hope that my noble friends will feel more confident about withdrawing the amendment, conscious as I hope they will be that that which they wish to see is actually going to be done.

The noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, raised the issue of a timetable. There is no timetable for lifting the Clause 4 restriction. The three years refers to the non-legislative commitment on wider offender management work. I hope that will enable the noble Baroness to feel more comfortable about where we are and that I have been able to give the clarity the Committee seeks.

Before, as I anticipate, the noble Baroness, Lady Linklater, moves to withdraw the amendment, perhaps I may say that the Minister has assisted me today and achieved some further clarity. However, there is still illogicality in her position in regard to Amendment No. 51A. She appears to be arguing that the amendment relates to the same kind of work as is covered by Clause 4 but that it is not going to be given the same legislative protection under this Bill as the other work in Clause 4 because it may be covered by other protections elsewhere. I have some unease about the logicality of the Government’s position, but that is for others to argue.

I am interested in the manner in which the Minister argued in defence of Clause 4. As I understood it, she said that those matters in Clause 4 would be exposed to contestability as and when private companies and voluntary organisations demonstrated their ability to take on that work. We all agree that that is the only reason why there should be an opening of the gates, but the gates, surely, should be opened wide only if those bodies can demonstrate that there is no conflict of interest.

The Minister went on to say that it is not the Government’s intention that there should be a conflict of interest. Is she saying that in the future when contracts are awarded once Clause 4 protection has gone—or before that for advising the Parole Board because that is of more immediate interest—no contract will be issued where the person bidding for the contract to provide advice has within their business portfolio any other business that might benefit from the provision of probation services that might be taken up as a result of that advice being given to the Parole Board?

All those issues will have to be looked at. Let us not consider this from the point of view of the voluntary sector or the business sector; let us look at the innate conflict that those two sectors may argue the public sector currently has. The public sector can currently say, “We are going to advise the court that it should only ever place people in the public sector and not in the voluntary sector or the private sector. We believe that we should maintain a monopoly in relation to those issues”. We are taking all of that argument away and saying that there are certain objective outcomes which we should ask of all those who seek to do this work.

There are certain conflicts of interest that we all need to bear in mind in determining how these will be phrased. We can do that through the contract by setting clear targets in terms of outcomes. What outcomes do we need to see? What training should the people undertaking this work undergo? What probity should these individuals demonstrate? If we take it away from private, public and not-for-profit voluntary and ask what are the criteria—criterion if it is singular—that each of these competing entities needs to satisfy in order to get the commissioned contract, that would give an objectivity which would enable us to get the best from all sectors.

Perhaps I may take this opportunity to remind the Committee of what our view is as a result of the empirical data that we have. We believe that in order to meet the needs of the individual offender and the individual victim, it is likely that you are going to have to have a partnership response, which may in part be public, in part be private and in part be voluntary, because that will respond best to the identified needs of the individuals with whom we are faced. This is not about the Probation Service, it is not about the private sector and it is not about the voluntary sector. It is about the needs of the individual people we are supposed to be serving, and any structure which meets those needs is the structure that we want.

I have listened carefully to the Minister. I share with the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, a sense of lack of clarity. Perhaps when we have read and dissected Hansard it will become clearer. I reiterate that our position is that the restricted advice and assistance that the Probation Service will be giving the courts is also inextricably linked to the ongoing review of people who are then going to have their situations referred back to the courts for further assistance and further guidance. It is hard to distinguish that area of work from what the Government have already agreed should be the province of the public sector Probation Service.

I remind the Committee of the wise words of the noble Lord, Lord Judd. We have in mind a clear fundamental objective: how best to rehabilitate offenders. I contend that there is a simple thread of logic running through what we are trying to say. We on these Benches have no problem with a variety of providers in the appropriate area of need. I drew attention to that, as the noble Baroness recognised, and there are many other examples. For the time being I am not going to press my amendment, but will very likely come back to it on Report. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendments Nos. 51A and 51B not moved.]

Clause 4 agreed to.

[Amendment No. 52 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]

moved Amendment No. 53:

I support my noble friend in moving the amendment. It is as well to remind ourselves that Clause 3(2) says that the Secretary of State may make contractual or other arrangements with any other person for the making of probationary provision. It seems to be in the general public interest to ensure that in making such arrangements there should be value for money and a certain number of constraints placed on those arrangements, including the necessity to report back and explain the basis on which decisions are made, in order to give effect to Clause 3(2). That is sensible, and I hope my noble friends on the Front Bench will be prepared to accept it.

I have added my name to the amendment. Subsection (1)(b) states that minimum targets shall not be set for the amount of probation provision by the private and voluntary sectors. I am concerned that that could conflict with the two terms the noble Baroness referred to—“quality” and “value for money”. The Minister has been saying that it is important that we have the best. It follows that it does not matter where the best comes from, and we should not bind ourselves with targets that might interfere with that very important decision.

I support the amendment. I listened carefully to what the Minister said previously about involvement of the voluntary sector. I recall Dame Suzi Leather visiting the Cross-Bench group some time ago and speaking about the Government contracting out work to the voluntary sector. She reported that three-quarters of the contracts were inadequately funded, which is a great cause for concern. I recognise the important step forward the Government are trying to take, but we all know how very difficult it is to get commissioning right. It is an extremely complex business, and we have not been good at it in the past. It is therefore important to insist in the Bill that contracts have as their starting point value for money and good quality instead of, as is often inadvertently the case, being the cheapest deal one can find. That we must avoid at all costs.

I support the amendment, to which my name is attached. I appreciated hearing what the noble Lord, Lord Warner, said in response to a previous amendment about contestability bringing in lots of people such as family doctors. I speak as someone involved in an inquiry under the Joint Committee on Human Rights into the protection of the human rights of elderly people in health and social care. There may be another way of looking at this. We have discovered a widespread situation in homes for elderly people run by the private sector. Staff who are paid the minimum wage go off at 5 o’clock to do another job, coming back on duty eight hours later, because the salary that people who run such homes can offer is very low. I warmly support the amendment; if we do not have quality and value for money written into the Bill, it will be very difficult to avoid lowering standards when cheapness becomes the prevailing value.

I rise, not quite so quickly, to oppose the amendment. It is an unnecessarily bureaucratic way of dealing with what is essentially a contracting issue. I hear what the noble Baroness, Lady Stern, says about shortcomings in particular providers outside the public sector in other areas of public policy. We could all trade examples of failures of public, voluntary and private providers of public services. That is what regulators and inspectors are there to help deal with. That is not the issue here; it is whether we should, as the amendment proposes, tie up a Secretary of State over the detail of a contracting process for alternative ways of providing services to the traditional probation service. Telling a Government how to draw up a contract in primary legislation, as the amendment would, seems absurd; then requiring them to publish a report on a set of individual decisions on these contracts is going over the top.

I should like to detain the Committee a moment by talking about some personal experiences I have had as a Minister letting contracts in the public sector. I authorised contracts for elective surgery, diagnostic equipment and clinical assessments worth hundreds of millions of pounds. There was no requirement in primary legislation to go through the process set out in the amendment because there are umpteen safeguards in common law and European contract law for the process by which contracts are let. You have to go through a very diligent process of specifying what you require and making that information available to all potential providers. As a public body, you are under an obligation to seek value for money in your contracts. There is often a testing process supervised by the Office of Government Commerce and the Treasury. We do not need to lay this down in primary legislation. We are still accountable to Parliament as Ministers when we make those decisions. We can still be hauled before a Select Committee such as the PAC and we still have to answer to Parliament, day in and day out, in questions and parliamentary debates, for our behaviour and conduct in letting those contracts. This is not how to handle this issue. Micromanaging ministerial actions in the area of contracts through primary legislation, as this amendment does, is not how to govern an advanced country.

Does my noble friend therefore disagree with the Home Secretary in the other place, who seemed to indicate that he had no problem with the report being placed before Parliament?

I do not think that I am disagreeing with the Home Secretary, but I do not think that when he made his remarks he envisaged that we would go through such a process even before letting the contract as is provided for in this amendment. Of course, we may have to answer for our conduct to Parliament at a later stage, but this amendment goes further than just a report; it specifies a lot of the detail about how you would let the contract in the first place.

I remind the noble Lord, Lord Warner, that the Explanatory Notes set out the framework for what is proposed here. In paragraph 4, they say:

“This Bill will transfer to the Secretary of State the statutory duty to make arrangements to provide probation services, so enabling him to commission from providers”.

Paragraph 9 says:

“They give to the Secretary of State the responsibility to ensure the provision of probation services and enable him to contract with others”.

In other words, it invites the inclusion in the Bill of the detail on how the Secretary of State will do that.

I know that we are in Committee and that I am no longer a Minister—although it is beginning to feel as if I were again—but this process of contracting takes place outside primary legislation. Nothing in the Explanatory Notes—and I have read them carefully—suggests to me that we should lay down in primary legislation such fetters on future Secretaries of State in how they engage in contracting.

I support the amendment because it goes to the heart of the anxiety of people in this field about contestability and the process of contracting out probation services. There are concerns about costs and cutbacks throughout most of our public services. It is a constant concern, as the noble Lord, Lord Warner, has already illustrated, and this area is no exception.

The reordering of the Probation Service, which is at the heart of this Bill, reflects in most people’s minds the fear that the Government are looking at reoffending rates, concluding that the figure is very high and costing us all dear, and deciding that savings must be made through alternative providers. That is very simplistic but it is at the heart of the worries in people’s minds. That argument ignores the fact that the Probation Service has done extremely well against the Government’s targets. Only this week it published its latest figures for how it has performed against those targets; they have never been so good. It also ignores the fact that reoffending is an issue that is not solved simply or quickly, particularly when the causes of offending are looked at in any depth.

All this is axiomatic to most people who deal with the problem. It is not a situation which is popular politically, not least because the causes are seldom dealt with by simple punishment and there is no quick fix for changing behaviour. Therefore, whoever manages offenders has to acknowledge this. Dealing with the very complex problems of this group of challenging, dysfunctional human beings requires first and foremost a wide range of skills, knowledge and experience. Generally this does not come cheap. Cutting corners in the interests of economy is likely to be very counter-productive. This amendment would not, as the noble Lord, Lord Warner, suggests, result in micromanagement but would require the Secretary of State to, as it were, unpick the criteria by which arrangements will be made with any provider for making probation provision—it makes clear what these criteria should be. He would be required in an order to set out clearly the factors which determine how the decision on commissioning is made. The amendment is to do with clarity and better understanding. These factors will have to include quality of service as well as value for money and will clarify the priorities which underpin any decision.

It goes without saying that we need a clear commitment in this form, not merely through verbal assurances, that the quality of probation services will not suffer and must come first. This amendment also requires that minimum targets are not set—as has already been argued—for the amount of probation services to be provided by the voluntary or private sectors; particularly given the fact, as we argued earlier in the amendment on charities, that some of the very best practice may be found in small, local, voluntary providers. These may not operate economies of scale but on the basis of quality at a human level. The best way to achieve the highest standards required is to ensure the transparency that this amendment seeks. Thus, it has our full support.

I apologise for not being present at the beginning of this debate and for missing this riveting discussion on two Committee days. I feel rather as though I am diving into a very deep end. I have questions about the amendment. I understand the heart of it and the need to ensure quality of services. However, I do not understand why that quality can be provided by only one sector.

I was the deputy chair of the National Care Standards Commission. When we were looking at elderly persons’ homes it was clear to me that the difficulties faced by local authorities in service delivery were just as great as those faced by the private and voluntary sectors. Those difficulties were the reason that local authorities closed homes long before the private sector did so. As the noble Lord, Lord Warner, pointed out, we can all trade those sorts of stories. However, that is not the issue. The issue is about quality and levels of resource and the authority to ensure those.

Like the noble Lord, Lord Warner, I am afraid that I have real anxieties about managing through statute. I have criticised this Government on a number of occasions for doing just that—trying to micromanage through statute. I think that is what this measure would do. I may have missed something and I should be grateful if someone can help me, but I do not understand what the measure means. Does it mean that we assess quality only when this provision is undertaken by the voluntary or private sectors? I would take offence at that. We have to provide a level playing field for all contracts, whether undertaken by the public, private or not-for-profit sector.

I do not understand the situation regarding minimum targets but I understand the heart of the matter. I declare an interest as the deputy chair of the Lucy Faithfull Foundation. The Home Office owes us a great deal of money, so I know all about the difficulties of commissioning and it not happening on time. Therefore, I have a vested interest, if you like. It is inappropriate not to recognise that when you set a contract, you set it with a budget. I am sure that Members on the Front Bench opposite support that strongly. You have to assess what you want to achieve for the budget that can be given.

We in the Lucy Faithfull Foundation were recently told that, due to the delays caused by the Bill, our contract for probation services could not be renegotiated so we would have to renegotiate what we could give for the contract. That seems a sound and sane way forward in agreeing contracts, but it is all management; it is all to do with day-to-day business on the ground. I would find it difficult to support the amendment for the very reasons that the noble Lord, Lord Warner, eruditely outlined: this is to do with how you make the service run, not the strategic context in which the legislation is set.

I support what my noble friend has said. We are talking about a change of ethos to that of a business contract. We have to be satisfied that, in negotiating contracts, the weaker participant is not exploited, as has happened. I know of charities that have undoubtedly been exploited by local authorities and others, sometimes by a local authority going back on its word, and sometimes by its not paying up on time. Very often it is by the local authority treating the charity or other organisation as a waste-paper basket; when it has too many clients it passes them on, but when it does not have enough it keeps them all for itself. Those sorts of thing have to be covered, and I should be much happier if the noble Baroness could assure me that there would be some legal help for small charities and organisations negotiating contracts.

The more I listen to both sides of the argument on the amendment, the more persuaded I am that reassurance is needed. The Secretary of State has the power to do all that is set out. We know from previous systems that effective voluntary organisations have run short of funds on many occasions, so the past has not been perfect. However, as this is all being left up in the air, the amendment seems crucial, not least the words,

“relating to the quality and value”.

That phrase is there to be part of the measurement. For the rest of us out there in the public who are concerned to see that this is effective, and that we are well protected and well served so far as rehabilitation is concerned, arrangements to publish reasons why an organisation was chosen are crucial. They would certainly protect the weaker partner; if something was delivered to the Probation Service, the weaker partner would need to know exactly why.

I am sorry that this situation has happened and that everyone has become so confused about the exact meanings and how you measure these things. I am sad to say that, whether due to delays in bringing this forward or uncertainty whether a Bill is needed at all—so far as I can work out, practically everything that has been discussed could have been done already under existing arrangements—I am in favour of the amendment.

There is one area of reassurance that the Minister might be able to offer. Again and again I hear from people working in the field providing services that if only more operational people—those who have to put things into practice—were involved in commissioning services, it would improve the process significantly. It would be helpful if she could say something about that or perhaps write later about how it would be ensured.

I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Howarth—I have tremendous respect for her knowledge and expertise in this area—that the amendment is not designed to differentiate between the private, public and third sectors on value and quality; it is an attempt—perhaps a clumsy one—to clarify the present situation. This debate has shown that more clarity is needed, and perhaps my noble friend will be able to provide some reassurance.

I have listened to the debate with great interest and care. The noble Baroness, Lady Gibson, touched on what is at the heart of noble Lords’ concerns—to seek further clarification on the way in which the process will work, how arrangements will kick in, how the system will operate on the ground and to reassure those operating in the field how commissioning and the development of a mixed economy of provision in this sector will operate. I well understand that concern.

Like the noble Lord, Lord Warner, the debate took me back to a time when in local government I had to deal with CCT, the development of the contracting out of services from the local authority sector and embracing the private sector. Rightly, one of our concerns at that time was that there might be a compromise on quality, given the demand for further economies. We were right to make that argument at the outset. Over time there has been a development of thinking that has established the importance of specifying quality in contracts at the outset; that principle is at the heart of our consideration. That is where we have come to in this debate—the need to understand what quality means when we specify contracts.

I understand the concerns that have been expressed in this debate. The noble Baroness, Lady Linklater, talked of cost-driven cuts and of her concern that they would impact on the way in which the service is developed. It is not our objective simply to drive down costs. That is not what this is about. It is not our objective to seek to cut the service—far from it. If noble Lords look at the history of this Government, they will see that we have invested in the Probation Service. Before we came into office, there had been a period of disinvestment, particularly in training. I argue that we have a good story to tell on training provision, and in the past few years we have invested some £40 million extra in training and reinstated its importance and value—and the Probation Service has access to it. We have used that to ratchet up the quality of services. This is not a cost-driven and cuts-driven exercise.

However, there was much in our debate with which I agreed. I understood and agree with the spirit behind the amendment of the noble Baronesses, Lady Gibson and Lady Stern, and the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham. As I made clear during our debate on Amendment No. 49, we are resolutely opposed to the setting of targets for the amount of provision to be made by any particular type of provider. I underline that we are not simply embarking on an exercise of setting targets for the amount of provision to be put out to competition and for contestability. That would run counter to what we are trying to achieve in this Bill, which is aimed squarely at enabling services to be commissioned from the best available provider.

In our previous discussion, I quoted what my right honourable friend the Home Secretary said on the subject in the other place. His words put our intentions beyond doubt. Indeed, I find it difficult to see how we could justify any other approach, and that is one reason why I am surprised that some Members of the Committee, including the noble Baroness on the opposite Bench, continue to argue for primacy for the public sector.

I remind noble Lords of the principles that we want to underpin our approach to commissioning and contracting. As I said, the overriding principle is that we want to commission from the best available provider, but how will we decide who that is? The exact factors will depend on the individual circumstances but I reassure the Committee that “best available” does not necessarily mean “cheapest”. Of course, value for money will be a key factor, and we would all argue that that is right as it is the public purse that we are talking about. However, the overall aim is not to save money but to raise standards and further the aims set out in Clause 2(4), which we debated in considerable depth last time we met.

Therefore, we are looking at solutions which improve the quality of services provided to offenders, victims and communities and support end-to-end offender management. We will discuss standards in more detail under a later set of amendments but I can say now that we will expect all providers, from whichever sector, to deliver to the same high standards. That does not mean that we will expect them all to deliver in exactly the same way, because we want to foster innovation and creativity—I think there has been an acceptance from all sides of the Committee today that we need to develop innovation and creativity in this sector—but we will also ensure that there is a basic set of minimum standards with which everyone will comply.

The noble Baronesses and the noble Lord propose placing criteria on the face of a statutory instrument. I am with my noble friend Lord Warner and the noble Baroness, Lady Howarth, here. I do not think that that is necessary or appropriate; it is legislative over-prescription. The overriding aims are already set out clearly in the legislation at Clause 2(4), and we propose to enshrine standards in legislation. We have also made it clear, on the record here in the Chamber, what our overall approach is on targets and best available providers.

The amendment also proposes that the Secretary of State should publish a report explaining the basis on which individual contracting decisions are made. I understand why noble Lords might think that a statement of reason should be made but we are already striving for transparency in this regard. In fact, we treat very few elements of a contract as commercially confidential. The main exceptions are specific elements, such as cost models and intellectual property rights, and our approach in this respect is fully in line with normal commercial practice. However, we place unpriced copies of existing PFI contracts in the Libraries of both Houses of Parliament, and we have provided, on request, information on areas such as financial sanctions and contract costs, with NOMS currently publishing performance data on private and public sector prison providers, as well as probation areas. The National Probation Service performance report is published on a quarterly basis on the NPS website.

It is worth adding that, thanks to the earlier amendments that the Committee agreed, there is now also a requirement for the Secretary of State to publish plans setting out the way in which he proposes to commission services for the following year. Indeed, this requirement will also extend to trusts and other providers in respect of the services which they, too, wish to commission.

We are already putting out a lot of information on the basis on which contracts will operate and be led, so transparency is already there with a lot of the detail that is contained in those publications. We do not think it right to over-prescribe in statute how the contracting process will work but we think that, in essence, we have the right balance. We understand that nervousness may exist in some noble Lords’ minds, but we want to provide the opportunity for creative and innovative aspects in the way in which these contracts develop, because we think that there is added value in that.

I reject the suggestion that this is a cost-cutting exercise; it is not. It is about enhancing the quality of standards. Over time, costs may rise as a product of this, but I do not want to predict that one way or the other. It is important that we secure value for money, that we become more effective in provision and that the service is fully attuned, however contracts work, to the need to reduce offending and reoffending rates. That is the direction of travel of our policy and that is our objective.

Some specific questions were asked. The noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, was rightly concerned about capacity building. We understand that. In the Cabinet Office additional research is taking place and consideration has been given to capacity building in the independent sector. Yes, we shall try to provide some support in that general direction and some of that support is already there.

The noble Earl, Lord Listowel, was concerned to draw, in essence, probably on best example and best practice in commissioning. Yes, we want to ensure that those good practices are widely understood as their value is evident. From my experience in local government, one of the riches that we unlocked through the contracting process and the development of mixed economy of provision was simply that there was a greater sharing of best practice which added value to the way in which services were delivered through different providers.

I have dealt with targets. In earlier Committee sittings, we have made it clear that we have no intention of setting targets for the amount of work to be contracted to other providers. We do not see the need for that. Perhaps I can offer a measure of reassurance to my noble friend Lady Gibson. On commissioning and contestability, who ends up with the work is, in a sense, not irrelevant, but misses the point. If the exercise can be directed to raising standards and improving the quality of provision, surely that is the most important overriding objective. Certainly, in the custodial sector, second time around Her Majesty’s Prison Service won three out of the five market-tested exercises for providing prison facilities and custodial services. Bids for Buckley Hall, Blakenhurst and Manchester were won in-house. We could reasonably argue that that had the beneficial side effect of raising standards in those institutions. That points towards one of the profound benefits of the contracting process.

I hope I have answered the questions and provided a measure of reassurance. The debate has been useful because it has focused on the key issue, which is using contestability to drive up quality in certain areas of provision. It has also focused on the importance of reducing reoffending and using the drive and initiative in the private sector and the voluntary sector to achieve that overriding objective, I hope that, having heard that, my noble friend will feel able to withdraw her amendment.

I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate, which has been very useful. I thank my noble friend for his very comprehensive reply. I shall reflect on what he has said. For the time being, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 5 [Power to establish probation trusts]:

moved Amendment No. 55:

I support the noble Baroness’s amendment. We are moving towards a series of amendments discussing what a trust is, what its duties are and how its work fits in with those with which it co-operates. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Warner, in particular, that those of us who accept the principle of the mixed economy are concerned that it is well designed and functions for the purposes for which it was intended. In an earlier debate, I mentioned the example of the privatisation of the railways, in which an inappropriate model of piecemeal contracting and subcontracting was developed for railways maintenance, with extremely damaging consequences.

We all understand that offender management requires active co-operation between a number of agencies—some public, some private—which require long-term trust and co-operation. As set out, this clause does not tell us enough about the difference between a board and a trust, and exactly what a trust will do. I note from the noble Baroness’s letter of last week that probation boards are key members of local criminal justice boards, but we want to know exactly how trusts will operate in those circumstances. We do not know whether trusts will have the same geographical boundaries or whether the disappearance of chief probation officers locally will affect them. There is a host of unanswered questions here. We consider that the speed of the transition under the legislation offers a high level of risk. I declare my suspicion of the new Labour approach to many of these things. It is, “If in doubt, change the structure and certainly change the title of anything because that does something”. The National Probation Service was created six years ago, a range of changes has been set in train since 2004 and here are further changes, not yet fully explained or understood—perhaps the Government have not made up their mind about them yet—but we are asked to take them on trust; trust with a small “t”, in this instance.

We are entitled to know a little more. What is a trust? How does it differ from a board? Later amendments will discuss the composition of trusts in more detail. What sort of regulatory framework will these trusts have? How far will they be the lead providers of services? Will regional offender managers be able to go around them and commission lots of other services, which would make co-operation much more difficult? What will the transitional arrangements be? We do not have answers to these questions at present, and these amendments, and some of the following amendments, will probe them. Before we get to Report, we deserve more detail from the Government about what is intended.

I found it interesting that in an earlier answer the Minister said that there is a requirement to give a degree of certainty. One of my concerns about this whole business of trusts is that this clause is all about the contractual details of the trust. I do not argue with that because we are all agreed that there has to be contracting and commissioning. We are not arguing with that at all. However, my concern is that, when reading the Bill, when trusts are mentioned for the first time, one would think that they are for contracting purposes only. In fact, they are not; they are part of the future governance of the Probation Service. Rather than giving certainty, they give uncertainty because the way that probation areas that are due to have a trust will be governed will be different from the way in which probation areas with existing boards are governed.

I find this process confusing. I can see the logic of the Secretary of State being at the pinnacle of the National Probation Service, which this Government set up, in exactly the same way as he is at the pinnacle of the Prison Service. He works downwards through a system to the probation officer on the ground or the prison officer on the landing. He does that through his chief probation officers or through a Prison Service chain that I hope we will have time to discuss. However, the chief probation officer is responsible and accountable for the delivery of probation services. It does not matter whether they are commissioned from the public, private or voluntary sector provided they are the best available. However, the chief probation officer needs to have a commissioning authority—whether called board, trust or whatever—that is also in the chain, but if a trust is to be by itself, and according to the legislation it is, he reports to the trust. We have to go back to the certainty required by the people on the ground who are doing the job.

This Bill is all about managing offenders; it is not about managing contracts. That is why I so agree with how the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, has put the amendment in pointing out the need to have more clarity on the whole process, which includes the developing trusts.

I understand the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, about seeking more clarity on how the trust will operate. I have no quarrel with that. However, the nub of the amendments—leaving aside the government amendment—is that they require the Secretary of State to secure the agreement of both Houses of Parliament when they set up, alter the name of or dissolve a probation trust, or amend an order in any way.

I suggest that that provision is unnecessarily restrictive and out of kilter with the way that Parliament has authorised the Executive to operate in a number of other areas of public policy. The one I know very well, and the one to which the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee draws attention, is the area of NHS and primary care trusts. I do not want to push too far the comparison between probation trusts and primary care trusts, but primary care trusts are bodies that handle a substantial amount of public resource. They receive directly from the Secretary of State the money for commissioning healthcare services in their area. They currently spend about £60 billion of public money each year.

There is no requirement on the Secretary of State for Health to lay an order when he or she dissolves a primary care trust or to consult both Houses of Parliament on that order. He simply makes the orders to abolish, to change the name of and to establish primary care trusts. It is not as though Parliament did not consider informing the legislation whether that should happen. It did not happen by accident. Parliament decided that when you change strategic health authorities, the supervisory body for primary care trusts, an order should be laid before both Houses of Parliament and that there should be a process by which Parliament approved that set of changes. Therefore, Parliament has consciously allowed the Secretary of State the authority to make an order without scrutiny by Parliament but admittedly after a process of public consultation, which is good practice anyway, to change those primary care trusts.

I have to confess to the Committee that as a Minister I made orders last year abolishing about 200 primary care trusts and establishing about 50 new ones. That was done after a process of public consultation and in accordance with the wishes of Parliament. I suggest to the Committee that there is a reasonable comparison between primary care trusts and probation trusts. Admittedly, we have had that kind of delegated autonomy for health for a longer period possibly than we have had with probation. Nevertheless, primary care trusts spend an enormously greater amount of money than probation trusts. They commission a diverse range of services which affect the individual citizen. So there are some reasonable comparisons there.

I rise to support both what my noble friend has said and the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay. I am interested in what the noble Lord, Lord Warner, said because obviously the other trusts we know about are primary care trusts. I wonder whether the degree of vagueness and lack of any kind of detail of what these trusts are—a matter we are discussing today—applies also to primary care trusts. Indeed, I would say that the vagueness and lack of clarity on the nature of these trusts, their likely size, number, geographical distribution and their composition or way of working, which are all entirely undefined, coupled with the lack of parliamentary procedure to establish them, appears extraordinary.

Given that the probation boards are shortly to disappear, it is no wonder that the future is being viewed with such consternation and anxiety by the profession. From the government side, it may seem perfectly normal, but if one is to put oneself into the mindset of people in the Probation Service, it is extremely worrying. As the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, said, even the timing of the conversion from individual boards to trusts is not clear, nor are the criteria that will have to be met for the transition to be made. Given the extremely important role of the trusts, it is surely critical that such basic issues are clarified.

Can the Minister give the Committee some idea of what criteria NOMS will be using in the integrated performance framework—which we understand it is developing to inform all decisions about public probation services—for those transitions? Will it consult the boards about that and make its thinking public before any vital decisions are made?

Boards will need to know what are the criteria against which decisions will be made about conversion—how trust status is both gained and lost. They will need to know that to plan and to be able to decide whether to apply to be a trust in the first place. As a starting point, there should be much more detail in the Bill to give the process a proper judicial framework. The Probation Boards Association is also concerned that there should be an independent regulator while the process is under way to assess whether the criteria for trust status are met. It must be made quite clear that such decisions are independent of NOMS.

Although it has already been agreed that courts services and core offender management will be reserved to the Probation Service, the timing of the proposed three-year period for offender management is still unclear. Presumably, it will be from the moment that a board achieves trust status, but that needs clarification. Can the Minister give us that clarity?

If we can assume that the lead provider model is to be adopted by the new trusts—something on which the boards are basing a lot of their thinking—for commissioning, perhaps the new trusts will have greater freedom than have boards hitherto in both practice and multi-agency working. The proposed, partially deregulated environment could be productive. They need clear assurances from the Secretary of State that there will be consultation on the new freedoms to innovate and become efficient.

It is clearly vital that the essentially local nature of the commissioning by trusts is maintained in conjunction with the co-operative working that currently exists with local criminal justice boards. These are complex, interdependent, multi-dimensional arrangements and are working well. Regional commissioning on a collaborative basis with other boards is also practical and desirable. It follows that the boundaries of the new trusts must not be so different from the old boards if chaos is not to ensue when provision is fragmented. Otherwise, everyone loses out, especially the offender and the public.

If the Secretary of State himself makes contracts directly with providers, that should be for services that cover more than one trust boundary, but should not undermine the local lead provider model. In contracting out, it is also vital that national standards are maintained and put on a statutory footing, so that the delivery of services through the contracting process does not vary from area to area. In turn, they should be backed by statutory duties for the ROMs to sustain the standards applied to the boards.

Ultimately, what matters is, whether restricted or contracted out, the service to the public is effective and offenders are rehabilitated. There must be clarity, openness and consultation throughout, so that everyone is in the loop and knows what the issues are. At present, however, the thinking is so shrouded in mystery and lack of clarity that it is very difficult to plan or contribute to a workable new way of working.

I hope that I will be able to give the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, the clarity that she seeks, and the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, reassurance. I suppose that I should not be surprised by the degree of scepticism and concern, but I reassure the noble Lord that what we are seeking to do is proportionate and, I would argue, well thought out. I hope that I will be able to explain to him how it will work. We had the opportunity to put quite a lot of flesh on the bones during earlier Committee sittings, where I tried to detail how the trusts would work, but I am very happy to take this opportunity to put even more flesh on the bones. I hope only that no one will think that the analogy will be obese by the time I have finished adding to its substance. The amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, gives me an opportunity to do that.

Under the Bill, as noble Lords are aware, local probation boards cease to exist in their current form. I entirely accept that that has caused anxiety, as the noble Baroness, Lady Linklater, says. Clause 8, however, makes formal provision for this. Under Clause 3:

“The Secretary of State may make contractual or other arrangements with”,

a range of providers, including those from the voluntary, charity and private sectors. That does not mean, however, that we are privatising the Probation Service, which is one of the things that has been feared and talked about in the past. Far from it, because, as the noble Baroness pointed out, Clause 5 gives the Secretary of State the power to establish probation trusts as the public sector provider with which he may make these arrangements. Provided that their performance meets the requirements, probation trusts will become the lead provider in their probation area, acting under contract to their regional offender manager. Chief executives of probation trusts will no longer be line-managed by the director of probation in the National Offender Management Service headquarters, but will, under this construct, be managed locally by the chairs of the probation trusts. A degree of local autonomy in that regard will therefore be retained.

We want public sector probation services to step up to the challenge of making a real success of end-to-end offender management in probation and prisons. Probation trusts will concentrate on the delivery of offender management while commissioning much of their intervention work from other providers, based on what is most effective and who is best placed to deliver in their local community. As we have always made clear, we want to introduce these changes cautiously and in a measured fashion. Some have suggested that we are being too cautious and too measured, and that we should go much faster. I hear that even before it is said, but we think that this proportionate stance is the better way forward. Our aim is to provide the right mix of challenge and support to enable all probation boards to become probation trusts, in the next three years if possible.

We see this as a collaborative process, which is why we will invite—I emphasise “invite”—probation boards that meet the criteria on which we have just consulted to apply to become probation trusts. The criteria will combine assessments of each probation board’s performance with consideration of its underlying capability. The first wave of probation trusts will come into being in April 2008. The second, much larger wave will follow in 2009-10, with the final wave following in 2010-11. We imagine only a very small number of probation boards making the transition to become probation trusts in this first wave. With public protection and the reduction of reoffending at stake we have to get this right. We will aim to select a geographically representative range of probation boards, with a mixture of urban and rural, and large and small. We will prioritise applications from probation boards which can demonstrate how they would use their status as probation trusts to deliver real improvements to service delivery. As this is all about partnership working, we will want to see how they would disseminate their learning in order to support further waves.

We believe that that is a cautious and sensible approach. There will inevitably be lessons to be learnt from establishing the first wave, but under our approach these can be readily incorporated into the later stages. This gradual approach will also allow areas performing less well sufficient time to improve their performance prior to becoming probation trusts.

Clause 5 enables us to establish probation trusts by order, which will set out the name and purposes of the trust. It is envisaged that trusts will continue to be linked to and named after their local area, but the order will not limit their activities to that area. So, for example, a trust with a particular expertise in one aspect of service delivery might deliver that service in other areas as well as its own. The detail of this will not be specified in the order but will be a matter for the contracts that will be delivered in due course.

Clause 5(1)(c) also enables the Secretary of State to dissolve a trust by order. There are two main sets of circumstances in which this might happen. The first is if a trust fails to secure contracts. The second is if two or more trusts agree that they would be more effective if they merge their operations. But we expect such an initiative to come from the trusts themselves; there are no plans for mergers from the centre. Subsection (6) enables the order establishing a probation trust to be amended by a subsequent order.

These order-making powers are not subject to any parliamentary procedure. Perhaps I may pray in aid what my noble friend Lord Warner said about how this is done. There is a real business case for doing it with a facility, particularly in the circumstances I describe, where a probation board may come forward saying, “We are ready to do this. We would like to become a trust”. It would seem incredibly burdensome and arduous to demand in that situation that we go through the parliamentary process.

We believe that this is appropriate because a trust may need to be established also for commercial reasons; for example, to bid for a contract or because a contract is lost. As the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee acknowledges in its immensely helpful report, for which I would like to take this opportunity to extend my thanks, this is similar to the procedures for establishing NHS trusts. It has asked for more information on how probation trusts will work in practice. Now that I have had the chance to set this out in more detail, I hope that noble Lords will be satisfied that the arrangements relating to establishing and dissolving probation trusts are subject to the appropriate level of scrutiny. I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, and other noble Lords who have spoken, particularly those from the Liberal Democrat Benches—the noble Baroness, Lady Linklater, and the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire—will think that this is an appropriate way forward.

I thank the noble Baroness in advance for her implicit assent to Amendment No. 129, tabled in my name. Clause 5(3)(c) gives the Secretary of State power to establish trusts by order, which must set out the purposes for which the trust is being established, and Clause 5 sets out what those purposes should include but gives the Secretary of State power to extend the purposes in regulations. The power to make regulations is currently subject to the negative procedure. As the noble Baroness indicated, the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee has recommended that this power should either be limited in the Bill or subject to affirmative resolution. On reflection, we are persuaded by that and happy to accept the recommendation. For that reason, Amendment No. 129 will apply the affirmative procedure to this power.

I was also asked whether in effect the 42 trusts are simply going to be replaced by the 42 boards. I hope that, by talking about the tiered approach, I have made clear the expectation that by the end of the process the 42 trusts will be capable of being converted into probation trusts; but that depends on their being able to demonstrate that they meet the criteria for conversion. There are high-performing probation boards that one can envisage will do so with greater ease than others, and they are most likely to be in the first wave; those which are solid but perhaps still a little challenged might comprise the second wave; and the most challenged in performance, one can anticipate, may take a little longer and therefore are likely to be in the third wave. The boards will be awarded trust status when they have demonstrated their ability, but under these provisions, if they are not able to do so, we will be able to make appropriate changes to meet that eventuality.

I thank the Minister for those reassuring words. Many on this side of the Committee welcome the commitment of the current Chancellor of the Exchequer to strengthening the role of Parliament in checking the Executive, and that is one of the reasons why we are not entirely sure whether we would wish to apply the predecessor example of the NHS in this area. Nor would many of us welcome the speed and extent of the structural churning of which the noble Lord, Lord Warner, appears to be so fond. The slow and proportionate process described by the Minister is therefore extremely welcome.

Last week I heard the current chairman of the Labour Party, a former Home Office Minister, give a powerful speech on the need to restore local autonomy and local democracy. There seems also to be a structural contradiction between the commitment of the current Government to that need and the idea that one sets up, abolishes or changes—sometimes for commercial reasons—bodies involved in the local delivery of services which are of direct concern to local communities, such as law and order. That is why we support pressing these amendments, and we are not yet entirely reassured by what the Government are saying.

I should like to ask the Minister two questions. I am grateful for her clarification, but by what criteria will trusts be judged, and who will select boards to become trusts?

As I have indicated, the criteria for becoming a trust have been consulted upon. I shall certainly look to see what we can make available to assist noble Lords’ understanding. To the extent that I am able, I shall certainly ensure that that is done.

In the first wave, the eligibility of probation boards to become trusts will be assessed by examination of their performance against national targets and standards together with the inspection results. The inspection criteria are available. Suitability will be assessed through a combination of self-assessment, stakeholder surveys, audit reports and diagnostic assessment by commissioners in partnership with the delivery and quality teams in the National Offender Management Service.

The review panel will comprise two NOMS directors and be attended by the chief officer and chair of applicant boards. The panel will ask questions and provide challenges on the capability criteria. Application boards will be expected to answer questions on their self-assessment as well as all other supporting material forming the capability assessments, and to provide evidence where necessary. The review panel will decide the final outcome by endorsement of the Secretary of State and will be empowered to either approve, partially pass—that is, limited freedoms—or defer to the next wave the application if it is deemed that the probation board applying for trust status is not yet ready. Each of the phases is designed to provide a robust mechanism to measure boards against the capability criteria and to give feedback to unsuccessful boards to assist them in becoming trusts in the future.

We are looking at these issues in a concrete way. The assessment process that probation boards are going through is helping them to enhance their performance. As I said, although many boards are performing to a very high standard, others have found it difficult to rise to the challenge for some time and may therefore have greater difficulties.

The Minister was right to anticipate my support for government Amendment No. 129. That means, of course, that automatically my Amendments Nos. 55, 56 and 57 fall. So I address myself now solely to my concerns about the issues behind Amendment No. 59 and the lack of parliamentary scrutiny for the establishment and/or dissolution of trusts.

The Minister pointed out that the Government intend the introduction of trusts to be carried out in a cautious and measured fashion. She has put a little more flesh on the bones, as she put it, without the analogy becoming in the slightest bit obese; the Committee would like to see a little more fat and information on these matters. She has taken us a little way down the line but in a way that makes me even more concerned about the lack of parliamentary scrutiny for the establishment and, particularly, the dissolution of trusts when that might be necessary.

My real concern was to ask the Government for their justification in treating this aspect differently. The Minister repeated the rather brief argument that it was for commercial reasons. That is not a satisfactory answer. Parliament has a proper part to play in such scrutiny. The noble Lord, Lord Warner, prayed in aid what happens in primary care trusts. He was right not to push the analogy too far because we have been exploring in great detail over the first three days in Committee how we hope contestability might work within providers and probation trusts and we have not compared it like with like to the National Health Service. There are significant differences.

Can the noble Baroness explain why there is such a difference, when primary care trusts have both a provider and a commissioning role? A probation trust may be in both those relationships. There seems a considerable analogy between the two in terms of functionality, even though the services are different.

The noble Lord, Lord Warner, would have a stronger point if the Government had not conceded already by Clause 4 that they are in trouble and have had to ring-fence some of the original services. So I do not take the strictures of the noble Lord, Lord Warner, in that respect.

The existing parliamentary scrutiny of the formation and dissolution of probation boards was helpful. As we move into a new area, which I hope will be very successful and wish well, parliamentary scrutiny is important. I am always aware that if we casually discard the right of the two Houses to exercise parliamentary scrutiny, we never get it back again. It is with that in mind that, while I shall withdraw Amendment No. 55, I give notice that I will seek to press Amendment No. 59 to a Division. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendments Nos. 56 to 58 not moved.]

moved Amendment No. 59:

moved Amendment No. 60:

I thank the noble Baroness for raising this issue as it enables me to deal in part with government Amendment No. 63. A vigorous debate on these issues occurred in the other place and gave rise to the government amendment.

I shall outline our response, but I say to the noble Baroness that I am almost timorous in doing so because she has said on a number of occasions that the Government have given in on something and that means that they must be giving in on everything. I add a word of caution as that might tempt us to think that it is not worth giving in on anything if that is the response.

I am grateful to the noble Baroness for giving way. I was trying to give her credit and say that, on occasion, the Government accept a logical argument. The logical argument here is that we are discussing a similar local organisation whose knowledge of and expertise in criminal justice should be valued. Therefore, I hope that she will be able to exercise the same acumen as she did last year.

I thank the noble Baroness for her compliment, which I take in the spirit in which I always take compliments from her, as they are so genuine and heartfelt.

The amendments address a number of separate but related issues. It may therefore be helpful if I set out the background before I discuss the individual amendments in turn. When probation boards were first established under the Criminal Justice and Court Services Act 2000, there was a requirement for boards to include a Crown Court judge appointed by the Lord Chancellor, four magistrates and two local authority councillors. The requirement for a Crown Court judge is in the 2000 Act; the requirement for magistrates and councillors was in secondary legislation.

In November 2006 we amended the secondary legislation to remove the requirement for councillors and magistrates. We did so because 36 of the 42 probation boards had indicated that they required a reduced quorum to operate effectively. The previous arrangements would have prevented that taking place, as well as constricting our ability to recruit probation board members who suited the needs of their particular locality. It was for the same reason that, when we published our proposals for restructuring probation in November 2005, we made clear that we did not intend to apply any of these statutory requirements to the membership of probation trusts.

As for the judges, we felt that since the new arrangements envisage greater diversity of providers of probation services, it would be inappropriate for the Lord Chancellor to appoint a Crown Court judge as a member for just one type of body. Consultees, including the judges themselves, accepted this.

The rationale for magistrates and councillors was slightly different. We want the new probation trusts to be local bodies with a greater degree of independence from the centre. This means, as far as possible, letting them judge for themselves how they should be constituted according to their local circumstances and not being overly prescriptive from the centre. As now, members of probation trusts will be appointed by the Secretary of State, but chairs will be fully involved in the recruitment process.

During the Bill’s passage through the other place considerable concern was expressed about the importance of the role of local councillors. On reflection, we conceded that councillors, as locally elected representatives, have an important and very specific role to play in ensuring that accountability. Amendment No. 63, tabled in my name, gives effect to that commitment.

May I ask the noble Baroness a question that I would have asked at the beginning, only she did not notice that I was about to stand up? I did not interrupt earlier, because I thought the answer might well come.

During my absence, perhaps I missed this question about whether the appointments are to be made under Nolan procedures or simply on knowledge of the person. What are the criteria for the skills looked for? I ask for two reasons. First, my experience in CAFCASS has taught me how vital it is that you have the proper range of skills to understand the service, combined with the business skills to understand how to develop new services. I am still unclear from the debate and the Bill how that is to be achieved. It is unclear from the schedule, and I do not know that I have picked it up in the Explanatory Notes or anywhere else.

May I also put a question to the Minister? If it is necessary to put a judge as a specified person to chair the trust, what excludes magistrates being specified as members of this body?

The noble Lord and the noble Baroness make important points. We need clarity in terms of criteria and I shall explain how that will be dealt with, but the process whereby chairs and probation board members were recently recruited will continue. That parity of treatment and the probity that we have will continue. The noble Baroness and the noble Lord know that we have to target the skills of those on the probation board to meet its needs, in the same way in which we will target the skills on the probation trust to meet its needs. That skills mix will be important.

The process was nationally managed. Competence was based on application and interview. Board chairs were appointed by the national director via delegated authority from the Secretary of State, and board members by a similar process. However, the board chair made the appointment acting on behalf of the Secretary of State, and the same will go for trusts in future. The answer to the noble Baroness’s question is almost, “Don’t worry”. The probity that we had before has to continue; nothing will be done on a little frolic of the chairman’s own with no appropriate criteria.

Will the people concerned therefore not be representatives of any group, whatever group they come from, but bring their skills to the board as any board member does? I seek clarification.

Some people will have a plethora of skills. I look across the way at the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay. She has many hats, so which would we choose? In the past she has been a magistrate, and now has skills performing on the Front Bench. Which category would she fall into? One has to look at the skills needed and match them. We may find that some members are able to fulfil different aspects of the skills needed on the board.

I apologise for interrupting, but we rather galloped on. I did not know that people were not going to speak to and support the amendment; I was waiting for others to come in as well, but that is my fault.

The noble Baroness made the point that it was considered at an earlier stage that the boards were becoming top heavy, which was one reason for doing away with magistrates—not local authority representatives, of course. Will one extra member make the whole enterprise lurch into complete incompetence and inability to get things done? If we were talking about 15, 10 or even five, perhaps, but one? Furthermore, that one is from the one area that has a tremendous interest in the legal process, what happens to the offenders and everything else.

There was a look of bafflement on so many faces that I certainly thought that the Minister was getting up to reply to some minor point, and that we were all able to speak. May I ask—

I shall sit down altogether. I looked around the Chamber—I am afraid that I did not look behind me but in front of me—after the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, sat down. No one rose to their feet, so I thought that the Committee, unusually, simply wanted to hear an answer. I am most happy to regain my seat and not to get up until each and every Member of the Committee has sated their appetite to say exactly what they want.

That is an extremely helpful and generous response by my noble friend. Indeed, I had hoped to speak to Amendment No. 62, which somehow was not spoken to. I am not sure whether that was Liberal generosity or just a slip.

I am slightly confused. The Minister has emphasised several times in Committee the importance of partnership. In Scotland, it has been recognised that there is an intricate relationship between crime, punishment, rehabilitation, neighbourhoods and communities. If this is about partnership, involving the community, sharing responsibility and getting more people to see that they have a part to play, I for one cannot understand why it is not an altogether good idea to make sure that you bring in some representative of the local authority and of those administering justice in the local community. That seems a self-evident and practical fulfilment of the very point that my noble friend has so effectively stressed in her own observations in Committee.

I was clearly at fault in being slow off the mark, because Amendment No. 62 is in my name and in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Judd, and my noble friend Lord Wallace. I wished to make a similar point before the Minister summed up. I apologise for being slow.

Our amendment places in the Bill a requirement for there to be a legal obligation for one member of a trust to be a magistrate in the probation trust area and another to be a local councillor in that area. There is no such requirement in the Bill at present. It is axiomatic, as the noble Lord, Lord Judd, said, that new trusts should, as far as possible, be representative of their local communities and consist not simply of local businesspeople, important though businesspeople are. Indeed, business expertise has been part of many existing boards. The one that I know well is in Chester, in the north-west.

The whole community must have confidence and faith in its probation services, particularly if it is expected to be involved, as it will be, in the rehabilitation of ex-offenders and their reintegration and acceptance into the community. If reoffending is to decrease, let alone stop, all sorts of local groups, churches and others must be engaged. Unless there are meaningful connections with the probation trusts, making that sort of confidence real will be very difficult and the vital reintegration is unlikely to be achieved. The provision should be community-led and will work only if local membership of trusts can create the links with the probation services and the understanding that is required.

I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Judd, for introducing our amendment.

I thank the Minister for her customary courtesy and kindness in providing us with this opportunity. She will have observed that, rather craftily, I have already said by means of asking a question most of what I wanted to say. I warmly support the amendment that was convincingly moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay.

A great play has been made about businessmen. It is as if magistrates are a race apart and are a group of eccentric nonentities who do nothing but give people fines for not having a television licence or speeding. In fact, they are representative of society as a whole and there are some excellent men and women in the magistracy. I would go further. In a quarter of a century on the Bench, I have met some of the best and finest businessmen and women whom I have met in my long and undistinguished business career. I should declare an interest as an ex-magistrate who is now extinct. This is an important point that I am sorry to labour, but the Minister was absolutely right in being more amenable to the idea some months ago, as the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, said. I ask the Minister to reconsider this, because many people feel strongly about it.

I am also grateful to the Minister for giving us time to speak. My contribution is not huge and I had thought it appropriate to speak a little after other noble Lords.

I am glad that the noble Baroness, Lady Linklater, mentioned the Cheshire Probation Board. Noble Lords may be interested to know who it consists of, because it seems to be a model of what trusts could be. It is chaired by the ex-chief probation officer of Manchester, who well understands the whole process, and includes the director of corporate banking of the Royal Bank of Scotland; a senior manager from the Liverpool and north-west Land Registry who understands regional government; a personnel manager and senior diversity officer from the Post Office in the north-west; a local councillor, a magistrate who happens to be the chair of a local NHS trust; the assistant chief constable; the assistant director of the Children’s Society, who represents the voluntary sector; the head of the Youth Service; the head of heritage tourism, who represents the corporate sector; and the ex-governor of Her Majesty’s Prison in Manchester. That is 11 people.

I was surprised to hear the Minister suggest that boards wanted the quorums reduced. In fact, that board deliberately wanted to expand to obtain representation of all sectors in the area. Its members feel that they are ideally placed to do precisely what trusts are meant to do. They are also represented on the local area criminal justice board and the criminal justice consultative committee—so they have fingers in all pies. This is precisely what trusts want—to be linked into the local community, if they are allowed to be.

My only query with the amendments remains the issue of the judge, which has already been discussed. The key factor in all this is the triumvirate of the police, the courts and probation, which has been at the heart of the management of offenders in the community since 1907. That factor must be retained and represented on the sort of trust that I mentioned.

I, too, apologise for speaking later than I should have done for the same reasons given by other noble Lords. Having heard about the expertise that is represented on the Cheshire Probation Board, it is puzzling why such people would not in future be eligible to be members of trusts. The amendments suggest that it is exactly such people who should put themselves forward for selection under the Nolan principles—with the exception of judges, who, I understand, have agreed that they do not want to chair the boards, which is fine. I would be satisfied by that. However, my point is that if they exist already, why do we need to change them? We can change the names from “probation boards” to “probation trusts”, but is there any need to do more than that? I must declare an interest as an ex-magistrate, but what has been said about the wide knowledge of magistrates and their businesslike approach to the job of sitting on a probation board or trust is exactly what would qualify them. What expertise are we looking for that does not exist already?

I will speak briefly because I am conscious that we wish to make progress. I strongly support Amendment No. 62 and share the concern that the model for setting up trusts with which the Government are presenting us is that of the early 1990s under the previous Conservative Government. That followed what was then the most fashionable business model, when it was believed that “businessmen” was a category that excluded all the other categories that we are talking about and that the pure businessmen model was somehow intrinsically better than local councillors. Anyone who was elected was clearly out.

In the past few months, I have listened to a number of Labour Ministers, not to mention all the candidates for the deputy leadership of that party, talking about the importance of providing local democracy. I went to a meeting of the New Local Government Network last week to find out what that meant, and I have to say that an hour and a half later I emerged no better informed than I had been when I went in. For me, the high point of the evening was when the acting director of the New Local Government Network suggested that one way of improving links between local and national democracy might be to appoint people who had local government experience to the House of Lords. That indicated a basic lack of research into the current composition of the House of Lords.

The Government’s approach here shares some of that same confusion. If we want the trusts to be locally based and locally informed and have the confidence of the local communities in which they work, there needs to be the strongest possible local representation on them. I was not entirely reassured when I heard the Minister say that we should let the trusts judge for themselves who is best placed to serve, but I think I understood her to say that this meant the chair, nominated by the Secretary of State, proposing other people to the Secretary of State. That is a fairly weak definition of local autonomy.

I hope that noble Lords have now explored the issues that they want to explore so that I can respond. I do not really think that we are at odds. I absolutely agree with the noble Viscount, Lord Tenby: some of the finest magistrates happen to come from the business world. Therefore, does one say that they are qualified to sit on a trust as a magistrate or as a business person? The one does not disqualify the other, so they are not mutually exclusive.

I remind the Committee that the provision states that a minimum number of members need to form a probation trust. The number is four and it is not the maximum but the minimum. Therefore, it will be for the trust to determine according to the challenges, needs, complexion and complexity of its local area how many people are needed to develop the work, what skills those individuals should have and how matters will be balanced between them. The provision sets the minimum, not the maximum number. I say to the noble Baroness as gently as I can that I would prefer a minimum of four because it would mean that the number could not go lower than that but would have to go higher. I do not see that there would be a huge advantage in changing the number.

I shall turn to some of the other issues and hope that I will be able to quieten the concerns of a number of noble Lords. Amendment No. 64 proposes that each probation trust should be chaired by a High Court or Crown Court judge and it sets out the extra member proposed. I have tried to deal with how the members should be chosen. Amendment No. 60 states that they should be chosen from a list of four eminent professions and that the membership of a trust should be representative of the population as a whole. All that can be done in targeting the people who are needed on a particular trust.

I should declare an interest in relation to Cheshire. As noble Lords may know, I am the sponsor Minister for the local criminal just board in Cheshire, so I know it quite well. I am now also the sponsor Minister for Thames Valley and Liverpool. I have seen the advances and changes in the dynamics at Liverpool, which has been wonderful, so I know that a huge contribution can be made to the skills.

I think that I have already addressed the proposed requirement for the chair of the probation trust to be a judge. Even the judges who disagreed with our proposals agreed that it would be inappropriate for them to be members.

On the issue of prescribing a list of members, of course I accept that a member of the police authority or a qualified psychiatrist would bring extremely useful skills and influence to bear on running a probation trust. But I hope we all agree that it is for probation trusts to determine the priorities in their particular areas. Chairs may decide that it is more important to have members with experience in the housing, employment or drugs rehabilitation sectors, depending on the local circumstances. I do not think that it would be sensible centrally to seek to impose or prescribe an arbitrary list in this manner, because a trust may need a different skill which is individual to that trust but which may not be as important to another.

Amendment No. 64 also suggests adding a requirement for the trust’s membership to be representative of the local population where practicable. This is similar to the requirement in the current legislation for probation board members to live or work in the board’s area. We removed that altogether from the Bill simply because it seemed unnecessary. We are absolutely committed to maintaining local links, and we will make it clear that we expect trust members and chairs to continue to be drawn largely from the local area. After all, it will be crucial for the trust as a whole to have a good understanding of its area of operation.

We will ensure as far as possible that members are representative of the local population. We remain absolutely committed to diversity in the selection of trust members and, indeed, we have a good record in this area. But we must allow for the fact that other skills and experience will also be needed and that they may be more relevant for an individual appointment. It does not seem sensible, for example, to prohibit a probation trust in an area with a high unemployment rate from recruiting a member from outside the local area with extensive experience of finding work for offenders. I am sure that noble Lords will agree with that assessment.

Amendment No. 61 proposes adding a requirement that the membership of a probation trust must also contain a magistrate. I hope that I have been able to give an assurance on that. I believe we all agree that the expertise that a magistrate could bring as a member of a probation trust would be invaluable. But we must ensure that members are appointed because they are the best people for the job, rather than simply engaging in a quota-filling exercise. In many cases, this will mean that a magistrate will in fact be a member of a trust, and it may also mean that a number of the trust members will happen to be magistrates. A member may happen to be a psychiatrist who happens to be a businessman who happens to have a history of having been a lawyer. We can put together many different constructs.

It is important to note that in many cases more than one member will be a magistrate. The evidence from the recent recruitment round for probation boards bears that out, with the vast majority recruiting at least one magistrate to serve as members of the board. However, those magistrates were recruited because they were the best people for the job rather than by virtue of their profession.

Local sentencer liaison is of course crucial but this is a different task from that of running a probation trust. We think that more effective ways can be found of carrying out formal local liaison with sentencers than simply having a member who happens to be a magistrate. As we have already discussed, that is why we have worked hard to ensure that arrangements are already in place for liaison with sentencers. These existing and effective local liaison arrangements allow sentencers and probation managers to meet to discuss local issues and address local operational difficulties. These will, of course, continue under the new system, and work is under way to adapt them to the new arrangements.

I remain convinced that this is the right approach. I hope that noble Lords will bear that in mind and that the noble Baroness will be content to withdraw her amendment. I do not think that there is anything between us. This system gives local accountability and local flexibility in accordance with clear criteria which will deliver real excellence.

I declare an interest as a half Scot. It seems to me that, occasionally, we south of the Border could learn from the way in which the Scots see and approach matters. They seem to be approaching the inter-relationship with the local community very seriously, so can my noble friend assure me that, in drawing our conclusions, we have looked closely at what the Scots are doing and how they are doing it? Why do they see things as they do and what can we learn from that?

We certainly have looked at the Scottish situation, which differs from ours. I emphasise to my noble friend that he must look not just at what we are doing on probation boards, but also at what we are doing to engage local people in local criminal justice boards, crime and disorder reduction partnerships, and the new arrangements that we are putting in place through local area agreements, which will reinforce the work done by local strategic partnerships. The local engagement that is now taking place as a result of neighbourhood policing and the new rollout has made a wealth of difference. If we aspire to that change, we understand absolutely the need to embed local accountability and local engagement in a way that is meaningful.

I say to the noble Viscount, Lord Tenby, and others that the work that we are doing with the various corporate alliances and the way in which we are involving business will help us to deliver on some things that we have wanted to do for a long time, whether it is occupation for those who are disadvantaged, accommodation, or better integration through sport and other activities. The corporate sector is taking a good, positive role in that, so there are many opportunities for us. That local grounding will be very important.

I thank all Members of the Committee who have taken part in this not-so-short debate on a core issue of how membership of the trusts should be formed and how they will best serve our communities in the future. I made it clear that Amendments Nos. 60 and 64 are probing amendments. I shall leave those aside and carefully read what the Minister has said on them.

On Amendment No. 61, the Minister said in her rebuttal of my argument that magistrates should have a place as of right on probation trusts. She said that local councillors have a very specific role in local accountability. I argue that magistrates have a very specific role because of their knowledge of the criminal justice system. The noble Baroness, Lady Howarth, and the noble Lord, Lord Judd, were absolutely right to draw attention to the range of skills that must be represented on the trusts. If the trusts are to be successful, there must be no clones.

I was particularly interested in what the noble Lord, Lord Judd, said about the importance of working in partnership. That is where magistrates’ skills are vital for the future success of trusts; with their knowledge of the local community, they can work in partnership with local authorities. The Minister was right to say that people should not be appointed unless they are the best for the job; this should not be a quota-filling exercise. That is absolutely right. However, through her own amendment, which puts in place someone who is a member of a local authority, she recognises the special ability of some people. I wish to do the same by recognising the special expertise of magistrates. Therefore, I beg leave to withdraw Amendment No. 60, but I shall press Amendment No. 61.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

moved Amendment No. 61:

moved Amendment No. 62:

moved Amendment No. 63:

moved Amendment No. 65:

I support my noble friend’s amendment. Schedule 1 transfers the determination of terms and conditions for probation staff to probation trusts. This amendment keeps collective bargaining at a national level and retains the status quo. In our view, national collective bargaining for the Probation Service is a prerequisite for the maintenance of probation as a professional service across England and Wales. We do not believe that if each trust is allowed to have different terms and conditions for probation staff it would assist efficiency in the service. Although the Probation Service has been made up of a number of local probation employers—there are currently 42 probation areas in England and Wales—since the 1940s, there has been national collective bargaining. There is continuous service with staff moving between different areas. As my noble friend indicated, that has enabled the free flow of staff between areas to the benefit of the service. It enhances staff professional career prospects, reduces staff wastage and ensures that the maximum benefit is gained from training investment made in the staff. In other words, national collective bargaining underpins the very existence of the national probation profession.

As my noble friend said, this is the view of Napo, which is the union responsible for organising probation staff. It feels very strongly about the matter and has sent us briefing on it. I therefore hope that in view of what has been said by me and my noble friend that my noble friends on the Front Bench will be inclined to support our amendment.

I support the amendment. The argument is not about central employment as against local employment of probation officers; it is about collective bargaining. The Probation Service has gone through drastic changes in the past few years. Despite contrary advice, we more or less decimated it by allowing local probation boards to appoint probation officers with the principal being appointed by the Home Office.

The argument moves further. Our opinion is that if it does not affect the local and national arguments, there are bound to be ways to establish certain standards for negotiation of salaries, training standards and so on. It is clear in the guidelines issued by the Home Office that any arrangement made requires the approval of the Secretary of State. In other words, somebody in the Home Office finally decides what is appropriate. It would be an absolute disaster if different probation trusts had different arrangements for negotiated settlements for conditions, service standards and so on.

Therefore, if the Home Office is there to set up the national standards, why is it not possible for the unions and others to negotiate at a national level the standards that are applicable? I find it difficult to understand how we can maintain a common thread among probation officers if that particular arrangement is lacking. I believe that there should be national guidelines for salaries, training requirements and contracts of employment. That can be done by a national approach to the matter. It does not take away the employment of local officers by individual probation trusts; it does not take away the local emphasis that we put on that. For that reason Napo is right. It acts not only as a union but quite often as a professional body to probation officers. It should be able to negotiate national standards with the Home Office rather than individually with probation boards. For that reason, we will certainly support the amendment.

I, too, support the amendment. I am particularly interested in what the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, said. As I have said on a number of occasions in Committee, it is hugely important to remember the people who are delivering the service. The noble Baroness, Lady Linklater, has quite rightly drawn attention to the recently published, on 1 June, performance report of the National Probation Service, which shows the best figures ever. Virtually everything has exceeded its target, some by up to 25 per cent.

I must say though that, as a soldier, I was concerned at the figure that was not up to standard; that is, sickness absence. It is at 12 per cent, which is 3 per cent higher than it should be. I was always taught as a young soldier that when you had signs of sickness, malingering or whatever, there was something wrong with morale and that you should take it seriously. Therefore, I believe that it would be divisive not to have a national system for looking after the staff’s financial well-being and their career and to support properly every member of the probation staff as part of a national structure to support people carrying out a national role. The way the amendment has been put has covered all those points extremely well.

I am sure that my noble friends Lady Gibson and Lady Turner will be aware that the issue covered by their amendment was discussed at length in Committee in another place. However, I am happy to repeat the assurances that were given then on the subject and to reinforce the messages that I am confident were delivered by my colleagues in another place.

Paragraphs 7 and 8 of Schedule 1 deal with the arrangements for trusts employing staff. Paragraph 7 states that the terms of employment are for the trust to determine. Paragraph 8 allows, but does not require, the Secretary of State to approve the terms of employment determined by trusts.

Amendment No. 65 would have the effect of restricting that flexibility—and it is flexibility—and would require the Secretary of State to determine terms of employment. However, it should be clearly understood—I restate it—that we have no plans to change the current arrangements whereby pay and terms and conditions for probation staff are negotiated on a national basis through a national framework and national machinery. It is not currently either practical or appropriate for probation trusts to set their own terms and conditions. We envisage that that will remain the case for the foreseeable future.

We are, however, engaged in a process of reform, and that will not be completed overnight. The provisions under discussion have rightly been designed to leave us with an element of flexibility to respond to future local circumstances which by their very nature we cannot anticipate in every regard. Without a convincing reason, it does not make sense, as the amendment proposes, to restrict in primary legislation the ability to react to unforeseen circumstances which require this important element of flexibility—circumstances which the noble Baroness could not anticipate or foresee—or the ability to recognise the localism of the service.

It is not our intention to undermine in any way the national negotiation process or machinery or the way in which they work. We agree that some certainty is needed and that it makes good sense to negotiate on a national basis, but we do not want to produce an ironclad straitjacket for the service as the amendment suggests. I doubt whether the amendment will achieve entirely what its supporters are seeking as I do not think it will provide for all the circumstances of the national negotiation in the way in which it is alleged.

I also take issue with the words used by the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, who said that the current arrangements had led to the decimation of probation officer services. I cannot agree with that. The noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, has very helpfully reminded us that the Probation Service is achieving and working very well, a point which is underlined by the latest set of reports. The noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, was making a point about the different levels of appointment for chief probation officers and the local appointments process for probation officers more generally. I do not agree that that has led in any way or form to the decimation of the service. I would say that the service is doing well and that our necessary reforms will enable it to reach even higher levels of performance. That is our objective, and I am sure that it is shared by all sides of the Committee.

I hope that, having heard my words of reassurance, my noble friend will feel able to withdraw the amendment.

I do not want to enter the whole debate that took place when the appointment of chief probation officers was taken over centrally by the Home Office, and the problem that that caused. I just remind the Minister what paragraph 7 of the schedule states. It states that the trust appoints its own staff and sets its own terms and conditions. Paragraph 8 provides that,

“the determination of terms of employment ... relating to ... remuneration, fees or expenses, and ... pensions allowances or gratuities ... requires the approval of the Secretary of State”,

unless he directs otherwise. That is very woolly. In other words, a trust may decide to pay less to a probation officer working in a rural area than to someone working in a highly concentrated area—for example, somewhere in London—as long as that arrangement is approved by the Secretary of State. That is not national negotiating standards; that will cause problems.

The noble Lord draws too much into those words. Those staff will be TUPE-ed—I think that that is the expression. The statutory equivalent of TUPE will be in operation. Providers will have to take account of how the workforce regulations operate when they recruit new staff. Those terms will of course be no less favourable than those of employees transferred from the current arrangements. I do not see the problem that the noble Lord alludes to. That problem will not exist.

As the Minister is talking about it, why under that paragraph will the trust not only appoint its staff—I have no problem with that—but set their terms and conditions? Why does the trust have to do that if there are national standards that the Home Office will implement?

The noble Baroness is talking about the machinery for negotiating wages and conditions. Of course, the local flavour will be provided by the local trust. That is what is provided for. It is very clear and very simple. Nothing in what we propose in the legislation undermines the national negotiating process.

I thank noble Lords who have taken part in the discussion, which has been interesting. I am not exactly sure where we stand now on national collective bargaining under the Bill. Napo certainly thinks that there may be difficulties. However, I thank my noble friend for what I think was a sympathetic response, which we shall obviously consider further. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendment No. 66 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]

Schedule 1, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 6 [Power to make grants for probation purposes etc]:

moved Amendment No. 67:

I support the amendment to which my name is added, moved so eloquently by the noble Lord, Lord Judd, concerning the necessary qualifications and skills that those undertaking this high level of work need. One of the concerns of the Probation Service and Napo is that there is no apparent reference to training in the Bill. My amendment—I support all the amendments in the group—seeks to suss out the Government’s exact intention, not only for the present but for the future. This refers a little to our discussions earlier today on Clause 4. I very much want the Minister’s reassurance that, for the three-year period referred to in Clause 4—and, of course, beyond if that period is extended—the Government have agreed that only those with full probation officer qualifications will provide court reports and supervise interventions with high-risk offenders. I am very definitely talking about high-risk offenders; we all know that some of the lesser forms of probation are undertaken by those who do not hold full qualifications.

I also ask the Minister to explain further why the reports for the Parole Board are not included. Having served on the Parole Board in a previous existence, I would have thought that it was crucial for the highest level of probation officer to prepare these reports for the Parole Board so that it may take the right decision about whether to grant parole. This is crucial not only for the protection of the public, which is what we are all about. The wrong judgment will affect the likely rehabilitation of the offender, so again we will not protect the public as we should. I would be very grateful either for confirmation that Clause 4 already achieves what my amendment seeks to do, or for an explanation as to why it does not.

Secondly—the noble Lord, Lord Judd, made this point—we really do need to ensure proper investment. The means are crucial. We also need those who deliver the training to have continued staff expertise. Currently, when the Secretary of State commissions universities to provide a degree-level course for the diploma in probation studies, the contract should be for a minimum of 10 years, now and in the future, rather than for four or five years, which is the current practice and which, as the noble Lord, Lord Judd, has said, really does restrict the quality and experience needed to gain a sufficiently high level of qualification.

My third point is rather more exploratory. I am quite certain that the Government will have been giving quite a lot of consideration to the design of an equivalent qualification for probation officers whom they believe to be qualified to do probation work with high-risk offenders and which could, under contestability, be part of the training of those who may be regarded in the future as fit to undertake the work that has previously been done by probation officers themselves. I argue—I am interested to know the Minister’s reaction—that whoever does high-risk probation work under contestability should have a degree-level qualification that incorporates the particular specialist areas of qualification that are currently contained in the degree-level diploma in probation studies. Whatever else that course contains, it should contain those areas.

Finally, will the Minister who responds—I do not know whether it will be the noble Baroness, Lady Scotland, or the noble Lord, Lord Bassam—confirm that, if the Government’s plans for contestability come into operation and community punishment and interventions are commissioned from voluntary, private or other public sector suppliers, a duty will be imposed on commissioners to employ sufficient staff with the sort of high-level qualification to which I referred to deliver the probation services? I have had discussions with those already involved in providing training, and their view is that community punishment and interventions require high levels of interpersonal and organisational skills to develop and sustain the consistent, confident and trust-based relationships needed to achieve change in offending behaviour and to be sensitive to risk and the public’s protection. I hope that the Minister—I see that the noble Baroness, Lady Scotland, is in the Chamber—will be able to satisfy me on these points.

This group of amendments gives me the opportunity to make a point about the Parole Board. I understand that there are at this moment considerable delays in presenting prisoners, and the necessary reports on them, to the Parole Board. This has added unnecessarily to the lengths of sentences served. I believe that it has also led to individual prisoners making compensation claims for excess imprisonment. I hope that the Minister will be able to respond with good news about what is being done to put this problem right.

The amendments to which I have put my name have already been most admirably covered by the noble Lord, Lord Judd, and my noble friend Lady Howe. I am particularly glad that the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, drew attention to parole, which was one of the issues that I was going to raise. There was a report in the newspapers last week about this, coupled with the problem in prisons of people not being able to get on the courses that they need in order to qualify for parole; so there is all that to be sorted out.

Further to the point about the qualifications needed by professional probation staff, I have been involved with the University of Portsmouth, which runs the extremely successful diploma course for probation staff, which has been mentioned. It does not make sense to cut any of the curriculum for that course, because it is in-depth and has been run over time. I absolutely agree with the idea of 10 years. This makes absolute sense, because it encourages the university to invest in that training and to become involved with the people who develop the training and who may relate it to the developing practice in the field.

It is terribly important that national standards are laid down for those in the voluntary and private sectors who carry out probation tasks. We cannot afford to cut that at all. I have observed with interest the different standards in the training of custody officers and prison officers in prisons, and we must not—particularly if we are dealing with people who are in the community, who are seen by the community, and who therefore affect the confidence of the community in the system—risk cutting any corners by employing people who are not qualified to do the work for which they have been employed.

I support this amendment to which I have added my name, but I will speak especially to Amendment No. 68 on the training of probation officers, which is an essential dimension of their professional standing, authority and status. It means that they are able to draw on a body of evidence-based knowledge, to which the noble Lord, Lord Judd, referred, from which their training is derived and is essential to the expertise and the delivery of probation services. I know from my own experience of doing post-graduate training as a social worker that the training I had in college and in the field was absolutely essential to being able to do my job properly.

However, nothing in the Bill refers to professional training or qualification, which should be the starting point for anyone working in the field if they purport to be delivering probation services, whether it is supervision or any other probation task, to a proper, professional level. Instead, this silence implies that anyone could supervise offenders. Indeed, Clause 3(2) states:

“The Secretary of State may make contractual or other arrangements with any other person for the making of the probation provision”.

Unfortunately, this reflects the fact that there has been a gradual erosion of probation training over the years. In the interests of saving money on the expense of a full training, the Government have been developing a second-tier workforce of probation service officers, PSOs, who do not have the benefit of full training. It is arguable that this has been to the detriment of effectiveness and quality of service delivery, which is hardly surprising.

Currently, it is a requirement in law that a fully-fledged probation officer has a Certificate of Qualification in Social Work—a CQSW—or a diploma in probation studies which is done over a two-year period using a mixture of distance learning, tutorials in college and supervision as part of a probation team. During that period staff have a protected caseload while doing their studies. By contrast, PSOs have no formal training and, with very little financial support for such training as they have from the centre, they are trained on the job. Ultimately, they do the same sort of work, with the same sort of responsibilities, as fully-trained probation officers.

Although I understand that there are plans to develop a better, modular training programme, it is still significantly less focused and thorough as the CQSW. There is a feeling in the service—rightly or wrongly, but the feeling exists—that the Home Office, probably born of these developments, does not really feel that qualifications are all that important and that anyone can really do the job, just as Clause 3 implies, provided they are reasonably intelligent. If nothing else, it is an indication of the feeling of not being valued within the service which should be tackled by government as those attitudes are extremely counterproductive and, like a self-fulfilling prophesy, can lead to a lower standard of service delivery by those who feel inadequate or undervalued.

In fact, the demands of the job and the standards required to do it are very high. MAPPA, for example, requires qualifications and experience to supervise and manage some of the most dangerous people in our society. But in London and most metropolitan boroughs, those offenders in risk categories 3 and 4 exceed the number of trained probation officers to supervise them, such is the size of their caseloads. I need hardly say that this is not a satisfactory situation. In the interests of public safety, as well as rehabilitation of the offender, it is absolutely vital that professional training is regulated and that the Secretary of State has a duty to determine that regulation which must be long enough and rigorous enough to give the staff effective skills for the job. The standing and authority of the profession of probation officers is predicated on this.

I had not intended to speak at this juncture but the speech made by the noble Baroness has spurred me to my feet. I am sure that she will not be relieved at what I shall say. I speak as a professional social worker. I do not have my registration yet. One day, when I get around to it, I shall clearly get it. Having said that, I am absolutely committed to high standards and quality of training, to which the Home Office and the Probation Service are equally committed. But every profession these days has auxiliaries who work with them. It seems that the Probation Service may be suffering from what the social work profession suffered from significantly in the past; that is, a professional pride that does not allow for alternative interventions.

Certain social work areas have social work auxiliaries. Noble Lords have to look only at some of the home interventions and services to know that that has made a tremendous difference to the work, and to the work of the social worker as a whole, because the supervision is always left in the hands of the professional who understands. I speak as the person who trained thousands of volunteers for ChildLine to speak on the telephone to children in the most extraordinary distress. You could not actually see those children and the suggestion was often made that that was not as difficult as being face to face, but I have to say that it is far more difficult. Those volunteers learnt to manage that and many developed into counsellors and went on to further training. That does not diminish the fact that we had to have qualified supervisors always on call and on duty to help to support and develop the volunteers’ thinking.

I do not believe that auxiliaries and other people working with trained professionals in any way diminishes the professionals, but I know that there is a resistance in some areas of probation, which I have experienced in other organisations, to engage because of the feeing that auxiliaries are doing jobs that they should be doing. Experienced probation officers can then get on and do the really difficult work, so long as they use their auxiliaries to do other work.

Does the noble Baroness, Lady Howarth, agree that while of course we must be on our guard against the worst kind of professional conservatism, her very point emphasises the importance of proper professional training and preparation? If it is fit for the task, it will emphasise the importance of the contribution that can be made by auxiliaries, how they can be effectively woven into the system and how the best possible use can be made of them. The issue is the nature of the training and the nature of the professional qualification and ensuring that it is open-minded about the possibilities of bringing in people with lesser qualifications but using them effectively, which is very demanding of those who have got the qualifications.

I do not think that the noble Lord is saying anything different from what I have just said. High-level professional qualification is essential, but not on its own. I know professionals who really do not know how to carry out a clear assessment and an implementation plan in order to change behaviour. There are real issues about how we develop our skills. I know auxiliaries who have absolutely those skills. It is clearly a question of management as well as the training that is crucial to develop it, but I do not think that the noble Lord and I are in any different position.

I had not intended speaking on this amendment, but some of the remarks sound rather professionally protective. The Probation Service has to look outside at other public services which have used sub-professional people to bring in and do a lot of work. They then provide a pool of people who can move on and upwards, as the Government propose with PSOs, to generate more high-level professional qualifications. We can look at the police service with its community support officers; we can look at ambulance services with their emergency care practitioners; we can look at social work, where some of us were involved from the 1980s onwards with care managers who do not all need to be professionally qualified social workers; we can look at healthcare assistants in the NHS and at surgical practitioners doing some of the work of surgeons. I could go on in this vein.

The Probation Service has to recognise that part of a modern public service is to have groups of people at the sub-professional level feeding into the professional qualifications, doing the jobs which do not need higher level skills. That is not to say that we should not back good professional training and qualifications, but some of the debate so far on this amendment has sounded professionally protective.

These amendments do not necessarily work against what the two previous speakers have said. We have debated in the House how beneficial the role of community support officers can be, particularly in building community relations and providing a pool of people from which the main police service can draw. But as regards the progress of that development, concerns have been expressed that community support officers are not being given the support and mentoring they need when they are first put in place. The same can be said for assistant midwives. They have been very beneficial, but a recent report pointed out that in some areas they are not being given the support and training they need to do their jobs properly. They have been given too much responsibility without adequate supervision. Equally, classroom assistants benefit teachers in many ways, but a respected report on children with learning disabilities, which came out six months ago, stated that many classroom assistants have not been given the training they need yet are often appointed to work with children with disabilities. There is a danger of losing control of the fine nuances in what is in many ways an important and welcome new policy. These amendments would help to avoid that by ensuring that the right levels of qualification and training are in place.

I turn now to my main concern. Utterly fundamental to the success of protecting the public is ensuring strong relationships, sustained over time, between probation officers and offenders, or between probation support officers and offenders. Many offenders experience for the first time a trusting relationship with someone who takes an interest in them but also sets clear limits on their behaviour. To do that, it is essential that front-line staff are empowered to reflect on what they are doing. That is how one sustains these difficult relationships. Let us remember that many offenders will have been in care themselves. Some 60 per cent of offenders were abused or neglected by their parents before being taken into care. Many will have had several foster placements while in care and probably attended several schools. They may well have had a chain of different social workers caring for them. That is but one group of offenders. Another group will have grown up with no father in the family. The Minister herself will be aware from speaking to prison officers how often they say, “Well, we are the first fathers that these young men have had”. Many offenders will have suffered early developmental difficulties as well. They are complex, difficult people to work with and relating to them is challenging, but it is key to changing their behaviour and protecting the public.

What regrettably appears to have happened in the Probation Service, as it certainly has in social work, is that the capacity to reflect on what one is doing has been reduced over time, with the best of intentions. I am sure that my noble friend Lady Howarth would agree that the situation has deteriorated over time. Supervision and staff work discussion groups allowing people to gather together, facilitated by an experienced professional, to talk about individual cases and think of the best approaches to working with them, are important tools which have been eroded in the face of interesting and in many ways welcome developments and modernisation. However, there is always a danger of losing the key elements of success. Again, it is fundamentally important to ensure that proper training is given at the beginning, and that as part of that training an ingrained habit of reflection on practice is established.

We should think not only about initial training but about continuing professional development, which brings me on to the issue of turnover. It was troubling to hear from my noble friend Lord Ramsbotham that the one failure is that of staff sickness rates. One sees the problem in other areas. When staff involved in social work or in children’s homes are not properly supported, turnover is high. Among the many regrettable impacts is that the relationships which are so fundamental to success in these areas are undermined. I look forward to the Minister’s response and I shall be interested to hear any reassurances she can give.

My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment No. 86, which is tucked modestly in with this group. Almost everything has been said, so I shall find a tiny niche into which to slip some words. I sympathise with the principles that underlie the other amendments in this group because we are all trying to achieve excellence in the delivery of services. I do not think there is anything between us and the Government in this respect. One of the few times I have had to diverge from the view held by the noble Baroness, Lady Linklater, was when she said that the Government were taking the view that anybody can do the job. I have not heard that from the Minister; I have heard her talk repeatedly about excellence, the necessity of the ability to do the job and the importance of training. So I hope that we are going to be able to develop in a partnership way our approach to these amendments. I say that particularly because, when he started this debate, the noble Lord, Lord Judd, was absolutely right to emphasise the importance of the qualifications and calibre of those who do the job. As the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, said, if those are right, we get the protection of the public right, and that is what noble Lords all around the Committee wish to achieve. It is a case of asking how we do that. The noble Baroness, Lady Howarth, was also right to point out that the Bill makes no reference to training; that is very strange.

Amendment No. 86 would ensure that the Secretary of State provided through regulations a benchmark for the minimum required qualifications of those who will carry out the day-to-day work of the Probation Service. When I saw Amendment No. 87, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Judd, to my Amendment No. 86, I felt no pique. I looked at it and came to realise that he is absolutely right. If I had been minded to move my amendment tonight, which I assure the Minister I am not, I certainly would have accepted his amendment first. As it is, I want to make it clear at this point that I support government Amendment No. 69, to be considered in the next group, and that all my amendments both before us and in the ensuing group are probing. The noble Lord, Lord Smith, has now departed. He was very smartly dressed, I suspect for a dinner engagement, which may assure those who have other places to go that they might do so with a clearer conscience. I shall restrict most of my remarks to standards in order to address the specific requirements of my amendments.

If there was any suggestion to the contrary by the noble Baroness, Lady Howarth—there probably was not—I wish to say that I understand very well and appreciate, better than most possibly, the role and value of volunteers and support officers in various respects. I have done this all my life, working with and training people in such positions. What prompted this amendment is something just referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay: the silence of the Bill on the supreme importance of professional qualifications and training. We should never seek to diminish the fundamental influence they have throughout the system, and they should never be allowed to slip.

I am in violent agreement with many who have spoken. As the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, indicated, I have consistently sought to emphasise excellence, I have accepted the need for training and for the highest quality, and I take issue with the noble Baroness, Lady Linklater, on her suggestion that the Government think that training is unimportant.

The Bill is silent on it.

I do not think we have been silent. Let me remind the noble Baroness about the history of what we inherited. When the Government came back into power, there had been a gap since 1995, when the previous Home Secretary terminated training arrangements, and a three-year gap during which no qualification training was available. Since 1998, more than 5,000 probation officers have achieved a diploma qualification. The Government currently invest £43 million per annum in the programme, and the contracts are sound. In order to assess whether the Government are committed to training, one has to look at what they have done, and a fair scrutiny of the Government’s record would show a clear commitment to training.

I remind the Committee that the system of training that we are all rightly applauding is now carried out without any statutory basis at all. We are not talking about changing the situation, and our commitment to training has been maintained with that being the case throughout.

It may assist if I explain more how training operates now and what our plans are for the future, which may give a little reassurance. The current diploma in probation studies is the recognised qualification for probation officers and combines the national vocational qualification, NVQ, at level 4 with a BA honours degree. It is achieved within two years and is delivered by a combination of work-based learning and academic study. The Ministry of Justice holds five contracts with approved higher education providers for the degree element and the NVQ is administered via City and Guilds. The costs of development, delivery and quality assurance of the diploma are met from the NOMS budget.

In 2008, the diploma will be replaced by a new qualification pathway that will cover all practitioners currently working at the levels of Probation Service officer and probation officer. This revised qualification route will be modular and more flexible. It will provide for the first time a national qualification route for Probation Service officers and will be available to all practitioners working in offender management and interventions. The qualification will be based on national occupational standards and will be academically externally accredited. Entrants with existing relevant qualifications will be eligible for credits to exempt them from repetition. The qualification will be subject to a national specification and will be developed, procured and, therefore, quality-assured by NOMS. All future providers—I emphasise, all—will be required to adopt this national qualification route for staff and to source delivery from a nationally accredited provider. We are setting the same standard for everyone.

A number of noble Lords have asked—it is implicit in the debate—how this will operate as we move into the new arrangements proposed by the Bill, where services are delivered under contract. We will award contracts to providers in the first place only if they are able to demonstrate that they will have staff who are appropriately trained for the services they are delivering, and the contracts will set out our clear expectations in this regard. We know that we will need a sufficient number of trained staff to deliver services, whichever provider is awarded the contract. So, to enable us to meet the need, the National Offender Management Service plans to continue central commissioning and quality control of probation training, based on workforce planning, for the foreseeable future. NOMS will continue centrally to allocate training funding to develop and maintain the qualification and to quality-assure its delivery.

I turn now to the detail of the amendments, starting with Amendment No. 67. We discussed this issue when we debated Clause 3 earlier in the Committee. My noble friend Lord Bassam made clear that the definition of “any other person” in Clause 3 also includes organisations and institutions. That is also the case in Clause 6. So perhaps I may respectfully suggest that Amendment No. 67 is unnecessary.

The same can be said for Amendment No. 68. Clause 6 is permissive in that it allows payments to be made to any other person or institution,

“for any purpose falling within the probation purposes”.

The cost of training, of course, falls within the probation purposes and it is not necessary to make explicit reference to it.

As drafted the amendment is technically deficient in its reference to “probation officers”, which is not a statutory concept either under current legislation or this Bill. The existing legislation refers to “officers of a local probation board”, which is updated in the Bill to “officers of a provider of probation services”. The point is that the probation workforce does not comprise solely probation officers, as the noble Baronesses, Lady Howarth and Lady Linklater, and others have made clear; there is a spectrum of people who assist.

I agree with my noble friend Lord Warner that right across the public sector we have developed programmes for working with volunteers and subsidiary workers to increase and improve performance. I add to the list that he gave, of course, the teaching assistants upon whom we have come to rely and who give such valuable and powerful service to the teachers, parents and children of our country.

I understand the sentiments which underpin Amendment No. 85, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, but it would not deliver the improvements she seeks. I remind her that there will be no difference in the qualification requirements demanded of providers, regardless of whether they are within the public, private or voluntary sectors. I can also confirm that people supplying reports will continue to be trained and have the same competence as they do now.

The first part of the noble Baroness’s amendment would require the Secretary of State to make provision for national qualifications for all staff employed by a provider of probation services. In our debates on the Bill, noble Lords have frequently emphasised the importance of allowing local areas to make decisions for themselves, yet this proposed subsection envisages the Secretary of State prescribing qualifications for all staff employed by providers. It would catch staff at the most junior administrative grade right up to chief officers. As I have said, we employ cleaners in many probation boards and I suppose it would include them as well, skilled as they often have to be. Employers would no longer be free to make basic choices about such things as whether top probation managers take NVQ-based qualifications or MBAs. I hope noble Lords will accept that that is not sensible.

The second subsection requires the Secretary of State to accredit training providers for a minimum of 10 years. Again, this is excessively prescriptive. It would lock the National Offender Management Service into terms that may prove disadvantageous for a long period and would stifle innovation. However forward-looking we are, we cannot know what will be appropriate in 10 years’ time. It would also lock other potential providers out of the market for too long for their knowledge to remain current. So it is potentially also anti-competitive.

The requirement on providers to employ sufficient staff with degree-level qualifications is, I know, intended to maintain standards, but it could have the reverse effect. It would enable and could encourage providers to employ staff with irrelevant or outdated degrees simply to meet a quota. The risk is that such people become a cheaper alternative to those who qualify via the nationally approved route. I do not believe that that is the intention of the amendment.

I thank the Minister for giving way. As I think I explained, I was seeking clarification of what the intentions were, rather than thinking that these particular amendments would achieve all our objectives.

The Secretary of State has a major role now in commissioning the sort of training that probation officers have to undergo and, so far as I understand, will continue to be responsible at that level for national training, which I understand the Minister said will apply to all those going into this form of training. It will be ladder-learning—getting up to the appropriate level—but there will be a level below which you would not be expected to be involved with the very delicate and important role that probation officers undertake at this time. It must be crucial that whoever is commissioned to do that work has sufficient resources, which must be pretty well wholly supplied centrally, to recruit the right people to undertake the training. If 10 years is too long, what period is necessary for a provider to gather the resources to supply the necessary training?

What level of qualification does the Minister think will be necessary for dealing with these offenders who are a high risk to everyone concerned, and who are currently dealt with for the next three years by probation officers under the amendment agreed in the other place? I would be grateful for a little more information on that.

I more than understand that my amendment, and some of my earlier amendments, do not entirely suit what should be in the Bill, if indeed anything needs to go in the Bill. We need proper reassurance that standards will be maintained. As the Minister said, that is her aim above all others, and I hope she will understand that we are trying to help her achieve it.

Before the Minister responds, I remind her of my point about the Parole Board.

Before the Minister responds to my noble friend’s comments, I hope I may be helpful. This is an adjunct to my noble friend’s concerns. In her helpful reply, the Minister talked about NVQ level 4. That is welcome and reassuring, but elsewhere there is a general concern that national vocational qualifications, welcome in themselves, tend to deal only with the “how” of things, not the “why”. They do not have a theoretical basis. Perhaps there is not entirely agreement on that. But when one thinks how important reflection is to being successful in this area, I hope the Minister might think about perhaps being more ambitious and introducing a theoretical qualification as well as a vocational one. In Scotland, for instance, the staff in children’s homes are expected to have, as here, NVQ level 3 in childcare. However, they are also expected to have an HNC, so they have both a theoretical and a practical understanding of what to do. The Minister might think about that.

I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, for the way she now accepts that the thrust of what we are doing is in the right direction. I am heartened by that, and I agree with her. The qualification and expertise currently available to us is at least at a level that I would aspire for us to continue to have. We are not suggesting that there is going to be material change. Throughout all this I have tried to emphasise that it does not matter whether it is the public, private or voluntary sector that is doing the work; it is the standard that has to be assured and delivered. The qualification set that we will ask of anyone who is contracting with us will be the same. If they can provide that quality of service, they will in due course, once Clause 4 and the other issues change, be able to compete for that service.

As to the qualification probation officers hold—whether a CQSW, a diploma in social work or, for the majority of the workforce, a diploma in probation studies—I hear what the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, says. He knows, as I do, that the debate is ongoing about what the qualification should be, how long it should last, how we should develop the subsidiary workers, whether there should be a link between them and how they get on to the professional level, how we can ensure that they do not have to start from scratch and that we give proper credence to their experience. I am sure that debate will continue with ever-increasing vigour, and will not be diminished.

On the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, he will know that there have been two judicial reviews with regard to those standards. There is a question about how we can get the Parole Board reports done. Those matters are continuing. The noble Lord should know that those two judicial reviews are sub judice, and therefore I cannot talk about them directly, but the Secretary of State for Justice is also seeking leave to appeal to the House of Lords in the case of Johnson, which held that where there was a delay in considering parole in determining sentences, a prisoner’s damages would follow. All that is under review, but I assure him that the need to have speedy, accurate, well resourced and appropriate reports available to the Probation Board is well understood, and is being energetically pursued.

I hope I have now replied to all the issues raised. I have wrapped up the issues raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Linklater, and the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham. I thank my noble friend Lord Warner, and I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Howarth. On that basis, I hope your Lordships will be content not to move any of the amendments and to allow the appropriate short adjournment.

I express profound gratitude to all those noble Lords who have spoken in this very important debate. I genuinely thank my noble friend for her powerful and in many ways convincing reply, and for the passion with which she has again expressed her own personal commitment to the issues about which we have been speaking.

My noble friend said that a couple of the amendments were unnecessary. I think that this is partly what goes wrong in politics. She knows what she means; her officials in the ministry know what they mean; and we, having heard her, understand what she means. But it is clear—or the amendments would not have been tabled—that the Bill is not as explicit as the debate that we have just had. Given the way the world operates, people will not go back to Hansard in future years to find out what the Minister of State, in all earnestness, said. Debates are inclined to get down to what the Bill actually says. If, for example, the word “institution” is not necessary but happens to express what my noble friend says she favours better than the word “person”, it is quite absurd not to replace “person” with “institution”. That is the kind of almost professional conservatism and inertia in public administration that we were worried about in elements of the Probation Service. Open-mindedness says, “If that’s a better way to express it, let’s do that”. I would like my noble friend, in the spirit in which this exchange has taken place, to go away and think about that and see whether she cannot meet it at Report.

On provision, the same point applies. What has come across from this debate is that the Chamber feels strongly about the responsibility of the Secretary of State to provide the financial means for making effective the arrangements that are put in place or which have been theoretically prepared for ensuring that the resources are there to make a reality of aspiration. Aspirational legislation can become quite dangerous, because people become very cynical. What matters is that the meat and the mechanisms are there. From that standpoint, I again ask my noble friend whether she will not go away and think seriously about what has been said and whether, in the spirit of the creative open-mindedness which she has argued should have a place in the Probation Service, she cannot, within the channels of government, meet it at Report.

In the mean time, and full of hope, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendment No. 68 not moved.]

Clause 6 agreed to.

I think this is an appropriate moment to break and suggest that the Committee begin again at 8.45 pm. I therefore beg to move that the House do now resume.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

House resumed.

rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 10 May be approved.

The noble Lord said: My Lords, the order is made under Section 55 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998. Its purpose is to amend the North/South Co-operation (Implementation Bodies) (Northern Ireland) Order 1999. The amendment order has the sole purpose of restoring the agreement between the two Governments into domestic law after it was lost when the Northern Ireland Act 2000 was repealed, consequent on the Assembly returning.

The order will give effect to an agreement between the British and Irish Governments on the continuing role of the Special EU Programmes Body. The SEUPB is one of the six north/south implementation bodies set up following the Belfast agreement in 1998 to promote cross-border community co-operation, understanding and action between people and organisations in Ireland and Northern Ireland. It manages the implementation of the EU social, economic, reconciliation and cultural programmes, worth £608 million.

The Special EU Programmes Body has fulfilled its role well throughout its existence. All the key EU regulatory and expenditure targets have been met, and evaluations show that the EU programmes it manages are meeting their objectives. Co-operation offers clear mutual benefits. We want the role of the special body to be completely clear to all.

The need for the order can be traced back to a change in the regulations governing the funding for EU programmes that occurred during the suspension of the Assembly. Funding for EU programmes and the regulations that govern them are agreed in seven-year cycles. The new EU regulations for the cycle that began this year contain some differences from regulations governing the previous funding period. These differences could have caused certain functions of the SEUPB to lapse, specifically those relating to the successor to the INTERREG III programme, which has been allocated €256 million over the next seven-year funding cycle.

The British and Irish Governments acted on 25 July 2006 to ensure that the Special EU Programmes Body could continue to operate in 2007 by reaching agreement on its continued role in an exchange of letters. That agreement was then incorporated into domestic law by designating the exchange of letters as a “relevant agreement” under paragraph 10(3) of the schedule to the Northern Ireland Act 2000, the Act that provided for suspension. When the Northern Ireland Act 2000 was repealed following the recent restoration of the Northern Ireland Assembly, the incorporation of the agreement into UK law ceased to have effect. We therefore need to restore the status quo ante—to reincorporate into domestic law the agreement between the two Governments on the role of the Special EU Programmes Body. The order seeks to do this and to ensure, beyond doubt, that the important work of the SEUPB can continue. I emphasise that the order is solely to clarify the role of the SEUPB and the shared understanding of the two Governments on the matter. It does not affect other north/south implementation bodies.

The order does not change any existing functions of the Special EU Programmes Body, nor does it add or remove existing functions. Its purpose is to ensure that the programmes body can continue to perform its role in the 2007-2013 EU funding cycle and thereafter.

The order will introduce into domestic law the clarity to ensure that the territorial co-operation objective, widely referred to as INTERREG IV, can carry on its work funding cross-border community projects that benefit the people of Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland.

I repeat that this amendment order made under Section 55 of the Northern Ireland Act has as its sole purpose the restoration of the agreement between the two Governments into domestic law after it was lost when the Northern Ireland Act 2000 was repealed. We all applaud the repeal of that Act.

Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 10 May be approved. 17th Report from the Statutory Instruments Committee.—(Lord Rooker.)

My Lords, I have a couple of queries arising directly from what the Minister said. He said that the purpose of the order is to restore something which has been lost because of the repeal of the Northern Ireland Act 2000. The repeal of that Act was clearly signalled and intended to take place on the restoration of the Assembly. Why was this not anticipated? Why was it not included, for example, in the Northern Ireland (St Andrews Agreement) Bill, which clearly contemplated restoration and the repeal of the 2000 Act? Why has this slip occurred?

My second question relates to an exchange of letters in July 2006. Before the exchange of those letters, was there any consultation with the Northern Ireland political parties and which Northern Ireland political parties were consulted?

My Lords, I am not sure whether that was a speech to which I am expected to reply later or an intervention to which I am expected to reply before anybody else speaks.

My Lords, my noble friend was a little premature.

I have little to say other than that I welcome this order. It is interesting that we have an order containing letters from two Governments to each other. I am extremely pleased that someone in the Northern Ireland Office picked up what we might have lost with the 2000 Bill and put it together fairly quickly. However, as the noble Lord, Lord Trimble, said, it is a pity that they did not save us the trouble and sort it out before we got to this stage. I support the order.

My Lords, I thank the Minister for introducing this order, which we certainly welcome. I take the opportunity to wish him a happy birthday. His presence here tonight is above and beyond the call of duty and we are very grateful.

My Lords, I thank the Minister for outlining the Order in Council. A number of points occurred to me, as an innocent Back Bencher. Surely paragraph 4.5 of the Explanatory Memorandum should refer to paragraph 10(3) of the schedule to the Northern Ireland Act 2000. Has the draftsperson been neglectful in not mentioning the schedule, or am I reading this thing incorrectly?

Regarding the definitions in the London/Dublin exchange of letters of 25 July 2006, were these not originally agreed on 18 June 1999? It would certainly appear to be that way to me, but I wait to hear what the Minister has to say.

Following on from what the noble Lord, Lord Trimble, said, was the order really necessary? If the original Act had taken account not only of suspension but of devolution we would not be going to the trouble, expense and time here tonight of putting this order through.

Lastly, will the Minister confirm that the order is not retrospective? I know that the EU implementation body has been working away for the past month during devolution. Will the Minister confirm that there is nothing that the implementation body has done during that period that would be unlawful ?

My Lords, I am pleased to note the return of the noble Lord, Lord Laird. He has obviously had a return to robust health by the fact that he is here at the first available opportunity. I am sorry if I have missed his attendance previously, but I am pleased to see him back in his place after quite a long absence.

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Smith of Clifton, for his remarks, although it is better left unsaid.

This is purely a technicality. If we could have planned for everything, we would have had everything done at the right time, but the situation was not like that with restoration. It was not done under the Northern Ireland (St Andrews Agreement) Act, because it is purely a technicality, and it is the sort of thing that the power in Section 55 is intended for—so there is nothing abnormal about that. I fully agree that there were debates at the time. In fact, during the suspension Section 55 was not available because of the special arrangements under the 2000 Act, and there was a discussion between the two Governments at the time about how this would be done by an exchange of letters. So it was done to classify those letters as a relevant agreement, so they were covered by the legislation. That was purely for tidying-up purposes.

I have no doubt that there may be other issues lurking round, although I do not know because there is nothing in my brief about that. The fact of the matter is that there was a fairly long suspension of the Assembly, when we were trying to do business as usual for the people on the island of Ireland.

Section 55 of the 1998 Act provides us with an enabling power to deal with the implementation bodies. We are bringing this one forward as swiftly as possible following the restoration, but it is an appropriate use of the legislation.

The Special EU Programmes Body is operating on a statutory footing, on the basis of the unamended implementation bodies order. The amendment adds a reference to the latest supplementary agreement with the Irish, therefore making clear our mutual understanding about the remit of the body in relation to EU funding schemes. Nothing is changed in how the body is working, and to the best of my knowledge nothing is affected by the work that has gone on in the past month.

With respect to the noble Lord, Lord Laird, I do not think that the issue of retrospectivity comes into it because the relevant agreement in the letters was there anyway—it has simply moved from one piece of legislation to another. That is perfectly straightforward. No one has raised any questions, and there is nothing in terms of spending. As for the way in which the programmes are being done, the regulatory rules under the EU are all being fulfilled; as far as I am aware, they fulfil the remit of the programmes. So it is not even a lacuna in that sense. We are simply in the normal course of things bringing up to date the provisions for Northern Ireland.

My Lords, this is my second attempt at an intervention. I remind the Minister about my query over whether there was appropriate consultation with Northern Ireland political parties before the July 2006 exchange.

My Lords, I do not have an answer to that. It was an integral part of the Belfast agreement, but I am not sure whether there was consultation with the political parties. This was last year, so I cannot speak from personal experience about that, but if there is an answer to give the noble Lord about that I should be able to give it to him before the close of the debate. I am not sure whether it would have been appropriate to consult, if it was a government-to-government operation, but that I cannot say.

My Lords, I may be able to help the Minister as to the reason for the question. After suspension in 2002, further arrangements were made to provide for the care and maintenance of the north/south co-operation—and I think that that is the third agreement cited at the beginning of Mr Hain’s letter in July 2006. Associated with that exchange of letters were clear understandings, incorporated in correspondence, between the Government and the Northern Ireland parties whereby to ensure that the spirit of the agreement and legislation was fully honoured there were arrangements to consult those parties when any significant decision had to be taken under the care and maintenance arrangements. I know that in the previous Parliament the undertaking was fulfilled, but I am not sure that it was being fulfilled in 2005 and 2006, which is why I intervened.

My Lords, bearing in mind the background and the position that the noble Lord, Lord Trimble, occupied at the time, I shall certainly get a definitive answer to that and write to noble Lords. I cannot answer his question tonight—I can confirm that. However, to the best of my knowledge in the period since the summer of 2006, when the exchange of letters took place, I have answered no parliamentary questions on this issue in this place—and they would have come across my desk. No one has raised the issue with me in correspondence about any lack of consultation. I am not saying that as an excuse, but it has not been the hottest issue in town. Nevertheless, if commitments were given about consultation, the noble Lord is entitled to an answer about what took place, and I give the assurance that I shall get the answer for him.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

rose to move, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 22 March be approved.

The noble Lord said: My Lords, these regulations are pursuant to important provisions of the Education and Inspections Act 2006. Section 6 of that Act included a series of new provisions designed to increase young people’s participation in positive leisure-time activities. This was broadly welcomed in both Houses. In January this year the legislation came into force and is now extending opportunities for young people.

Youth Matters, the July 2005 DfES Green Paper on youth activities, highlighted evidence indicating the benefits to young people of engaging in constructive out-of-school activities. Those activities were shown to aid personal and social development, diverting young people in danger of disaffection and anti-social behaviour.

However, research findings and testimony from young people themselves, which informed Youth Matters and the subsequent Youth Matters: Next Steps, published in March 2006, revealed that positive activities were frequently inaccessible, expensive, unpopular or simply unavailable. Furthermore, the evidence showed that these barriers to participation were often greatest for vulnerable and disaffected young people, who have the most to gain from participating.

For that reason we brought forward Section 6, which inserted a new Section 507B into the Education Act 1996, placing new duties on local authorities. They include a requirement to consult young people about local activities; to publicise and keep up-to-date information on things to do locally and places to go; and—the main duty—to secure, so far as is reasonably practicable, access for all young people in the authority to sufficient educational and recreational leisure-time activities for the improvement of their well-being, and sufficient facilities for these activities.

Section 6 also included, in Schedule 1 to the 2006 Act, an amendment to the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 to update its definition of “recreational or training facilities” so that it referred to the new legislation. Unfortunately, while Section 6 was still subject to parliamentary scrutiny, the section of the Disability Discrimination Act that we sought to amend through Schedule 1 was itself amended by the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 (Amendment) (Further and Higher Education) Regulations 2006. This rendered the Schedule 1 amendment irrelevant since it referred to a paragraph that had been amended.

We propose these regulations to remedy that straightforward error by my department. They correctly locate the new definition of “recreational or training facilities” within the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 and will restore coherence within Section 6.

I hope that, on the basis of that explanation and given the warm reception originally accorded to Section 6, the House will agree these regulations. I beg to move.

Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 22 March be approved. 14th Report from the Statutory Instruments Committee.—(Lord Adonis.)

My Lords, I thank the Minister for introducing these technical amendments and for his frankness in explaining that they are required only because of an error made by the Department for Education and Skills during the passage of the Education and Inspections Bill last year, or, as the Minister in another place, Bill Rammell, said:

“To put it bluntly, the left hand did not know what the right hand was doing”.—[Official Report, Commons, Second Delegated Legislation Committee, 25/4/07; col. 4.]

Given that it has been reported this week that the Government pass a new law every three hours, that is hardly surprising.

I declare an interest as a trustee of the Disability Partnership, a charity which seeks to offer practical ways to increase social inclusion across the disability spectrum. This is an issue of great concern to many, as was highlighted by the lengthy and earnest debate in both Houses during the passage of the Education and Inspections Bill. I do not intend to rehearse the arguments today but I take this unexpected opportunity to emphasise the need to understand and appreciate the complexities of disability.

I appreciate that much has been done to improve physical access to buildings, but this is not just about ensuring wheelchair access, important though that is. Indeed, less than 4 per cent of disabled people use a wheelchair. There is a great variance in disability and often fluctuating conditions within that disability. If we are to encourage young people to make the most of the opportunities available to them, we must respond flexibly and sensitively to their needs. Many young people with disabilities often feel insecure in unfamiliar settings. It is vital that we do not throw them in at the deep end without the necessary support and guidance to make them feel safe.

The measures set out in the Education and Inspections Act were welcomed by all sides, but will the Minister accept that we need to do more to ensure that help is given to those who are visually impaired, have hearing difficulties and who suffer from long-term chronic conditions?

My Lords, I thank the Minister for introducing this secondary legislation, which is in effect a correction. We agree with its original aim. We thank the Minister for making sure that when an error is found it is corrected. I echo the words of the noble Baroness. It is rather worrying when we are in such agreement on a matter. My interest in the cross-section of disability and the hidden types of disability is known. It is a good thing when those are taken on board and flexibility is worked into the legislation. I hope that, whatever else may be said tonight and whatever knuckles have been rapped on this matter, the Minister will tell his department that the general thrust of the measure has almost universal support.

My Lords, I am grateful for the welcome given by the noble Baroness and the noble Lord. I simply say yes to the noble Baroness; I agree that more needs to be done in this area. Precisely for that reason, we introduced Section 6 and the duties that apply in respect of it. It is the reason we have produced Removing Barriers to Achievement and a whole set of other initiatives to promote the needs of young people with disabilities. It is why we have the Disability Discrimination Act and are imposing a set of new duties on local authorities, schools and other public bodies to see that they take these issues increasingly seriously. It is why we are increasing budgets in this area. I entirely agree with what the noble Baroness said. I am grateful for her forbearance and for that of the noble Lord. I hope that the House will agree to the regulations.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until 8.45 pm.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

[The Sitting was suspended from 8.07 to 8.45 pm.]

moved Amendment No. 69:

I shall speak to my Amendment No. 82 in this group. I thank the Minister for his exposition of the Government’s amendment that puts national standards into the Bill. It is welcome, although I suspect that many noble Lords will see it only as a first step. I am grateful for the noble Lord’s assurance regarding subsection (2) of my amendment. I had wished to ensure that the standards to be achieved should include the provision of reports to courts and the Parole Board. The Minister assured me that those would be covered and I am grateful to him.

I understand why subsection (3) of the Government’s amendment is not prescriptive on standards across the different providers and uses the term, “so far as practicable”. I realise that that may meet some resistance by noble Lords, but I can understand the legal and practical context in which the Government are working and why they have adopted that terminology. That subsection is a great step forward from the current position whereby the Bill is silent on the importance of training, and because the Government are covering all providers. The more the Government talk about using a similar approach to all providers, the more reassurance they may convey—although we have some way to go.

My Amendment No. 82 ensures that national standards must be met in the provision of reports to courts and the Parole Board. The Government dealt with that. Subsection (3) would require that those who fail to meet proper standards of probation provision should pay a financial penalty. I was very interested to hear what the Minister said. I listened most carefully when he talked about incentives and sanctions being part of the process. I agree with him entirely. One wants to provide incentives in the contract to ensure that people want to bid and to make them feel proud of the work that they are doing and that there is a can-do mentality. One wants voluntary organisations, in particular, to offer their services in the expectation that they will be able to make a real contribution to outcomes in the probation world. Equally, I am certainly aware that if there is to be any kind of contestability with any meaning, there must be sanctions.

When I tabled my amendment, I was contacted by Third Sector magazine, which asked me to comment on why I had done so. I was asked to provide a quick response as there were only 24 hours to go before the magazine was due to be published. At the time, I was working on the Serious Crime Bill—noble Lords will be able to hear the violins. I tried to turn round a story but then the magazine did not reply, so unfortunately the article appeared in Third Sector magazine without the benefit of my contribution. I tried to explain in an e-mail that my views could be read in Hansard, and of course my honourable and right honourable friends in another place had given their views.

I understand that voluntary organisations may fear that penalties—financial or otherwise, such as the curtailment of their activities—might damage their standing. I refer not just to their professional standing among their peers but also their financial standing, and I was certainly told that charities were concerned that their financial position could be endangered.

I was also told that some charitable providers felt that they would become risk-averse and would not be as flexible and willing to enter the arena in the first place. I was concerned about people worrying that they would become risk-averse because I do not see probation providers being risk-friendly. All probation work carries some risk but one weighs that up against the outcome that one is going to achieve and the kind of people one is using. Anyone who hopes to win a contract to provide probation services will not be taking risks at all. They will have gone through a very careful evaluation, and the work that I have done with charities has shown that that is what they do if they are to enter a commercial relationship.

Therefore, I was not concerned that my amendment would be a threat to charities or in any way undermine their flexibility and their ability to respond. However—I have had conversations around the House about this—I believe that charities may have misunderstood the implications of contestability for them, and that is what lies beneath my tabling the amendment. Charities have been enthusiastic about contestability because they have seen the income stream that it will guarantee them. Their views have been jaundiced when trying to get money from the Home Office in the past, or perhaps when their contracts have not been renewed or they have not been paid the full amount. They see this as some kind of security for the future but it is not all going to be like that, and I think that small charities, in particular, may find that they are not quite in the position that they had hoped for.

I have worked in a local part of a national charity. We changed it into a company limited by guarantee and bid very successfully for a series of contracts under what would have been contestability by any other name—not in probation but in a related field. I have seen the success of that operation but it has changed the way that the charity is operated—as it had to. The range and remit of the charity changed, although its core principles did not change, but it had to accept penalties if it entered into the arena.

Perhaps I may make a simple point. I hear what the noble Baroness says on this issue and I understand it from my own experience in the field, but I think that she is describing the development of professionalism within smaller charities. I would argue that, in this instance, that is most welcome and we should encourage it. I understand that penalties can seem scary, but we have to have some form of sanction to ensure that we get the standard of service that I think we all agree we require.

Throughout the Bill, we have heard the noble Baroness, Lady Scotland, say that there is not much between us and this time I can say it—it is true for once. I appreciate that, if there is to be any success in the rollout of contestability, there have to be penalties. I still think that there will be a change in culture among some charities. That may not necessarily all be unwelcome, but it will be a very hard experience. I hope that we end up with charities that are stronger, because they have the most marvellous abilities.

Amendment No. 83, in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Judd and Lord Ramsbotham, and the noble Baroness, Lady Stern, provides a very helpful enlargement of the scope of my amendment. If I were to vote on mine, I would say yes to Amendment No. 83 first. At the beginning, I made it clear that I welcome what the Government are doing as a first step—I suspect that others may wish to press them further—and I certainly support Amendment No. 69 and shall not press mine.

I would like to speak to Amendment No. 83. I thank the noble Baroness for the generous comments she has just made about it. I always find her remarks fascinating, but I found her remarks in speaking to her amendment particularly interesting, informed as they were by direct experience. I agree that this is a very serious undertaking for anyone who enters into a commitment to provide probation services. We cannot overestimate the damage that could be done. That is why the training is so important. They have to be able to understand why people are and have become criminals and how they see life. Apart from anything else, it is a psychologically demanding task. It is important to remind people just what a serious undertaking they are entering into. I am with her on that.

Amendment No. 83 provides the means of fulfilling subsection (1) of Amendment No. 82. I do not quite see the point of making provision for standards to be achieved unless one says how that is to be done, including the necessary training. That is why I believe that that needs to be in the Bill somewhere. I hope my noble friends on the Front Bench will forgive me hammering away at this point, but I believe that is essential and will give credibility to the whole thing. I say to my noble friend who has spoken to the government amendment that I respect his commitment and understanding, but I believe that this point has to be in the Bill. This is another opportunity to make the point and, therefore, I make it. I shall move Amendment No. 83.

I am extremely glad that the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, has raised a very important point about charities and their accepting contracts. My noble friend Lord Listowel mentioned earlier the presentation to the Cross-Benchers by the chairman of the Charity Commission in which she introduced her report Stand and deliver. In that she pointed out the dangers of charities changing their missions to respond to direction from funders. If they did, they risked their charitable status and their trustees would be liable for the changes. I looked in vain at the regulatory impact assessment to see whether there was any mention of the likelihood of an impact on the voluntary sector for accepting contracts under terms like this and what it might do for them and I found none. It is an important point which has to be thought through with great care before one launches into the wonderful idea that one can contract the voluntary sector to do all kinds of things which are desirable in a partnership sense, but one has to think of the integrity of the charities that are employed.

I briefly go again into the lion’s den, to support these amendments which follow on from our previous discussion. The regulation of standards is yet another area where the Bill is curiously silent, particularly on the provision of reports, the monitoring of content, the supervision of offenders and financial penalties for those who fail to hit government targets, as we have just heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay. The Secretary of State must have a duty to set standards as well as revise them. Without the amendment, there will be no specific body to set standards for probation practice. Amazingly, I have discovered that the National Probation Directorate was established just six years ago and is currently being abolished by the Home Office. Perhaps we could hear more about that from the Minister.

Before my noble friend replies, I take up a point of the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham. The noble Lord has put his finger on an important consideration of the Opposition’s amendment. I have just said that one cannot take too seriously the commitment into which any agency enters in undertaking to provide a service in this sphere because of the damage that could be done without the right kind of understanding and professionalism, however enthusiastic and well intentioned it is—and perhaps all the worse because of that. In that sense, I commend the Opposition’s amendment.

However—and I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, prompted me into making this observation—in saying that, I do not want to be taken as one of those who has joined a dangerous trend towards a subcontracting culture in the voluntary sector. There must be hard talking between any agency and the Government before the contract is sealed. There must be an understanding that a good agency with real experience and something to offer will bring something to that situation which must be taken seriously. There must be hard talking. What comes out of it must be a partnership, not just between the contractor or subcontractor and the Government, but one forged through honest discussion. Once it is entered into, it becomes a serious commitment to deliver. I do not believe that that point can be over-emphasised.

I thank the Government for bringing forward this amendment to set national standards for the management of offenders. It is crucial to ensure that there is a proper, professional framework for those working on the front line.

I was somewhat disappointed when the Minister said that he did not wish to take a top-down approach or talk about training in these minimum standards but preferred to set broad parameters, although I understand the motivation. In children’s homes, for instance, there is a minimum standard whereby there is an obligation to provide someone on the front line with one or two hours of supervision with a senior practitioner once a month. When they first start, there is obligation to give them even more. That is where this could make such a difference.

We have seen that supervision decline in social work. In children’s homes, that is the worst case scenario: where things have gone to pot and there has been no professional framework. If one looks to the Continent, one can see a huge disparity between those working with the most vulnerable children and young people in this country and abroad. There is a danger that, in seeking to implement the Bill—even with all the good intentions behind it—standards could go down in the transition. Having national minimum standards for quality and quantity of supervision clearly set out, for instance, would be very helpful indeed if we could go that far. That might be along the lines of the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Judd.

Finally, we talked about contracting to private and voluntary suppliers, and not being prejudiced about doing so. We should absolutely not be prejudiced about it. However, the most important supports for people on the front line are supervision and the opportunity to stand aside and reflect on what they are doing and their relationships with their clients, but that is almost invisible. I cannot help but observe in other areas where services working with vulnerable people are contracted out, it is unfortunate that those supports are often cut when costs are being considered because their value is not apparent, especially not to companies that do not necessarily know about the business. There are good private companies, which are often run by people who have worked in the business, know it very well and relish the independence, freedom and creativity of running their own business, but venture capital or large business bases often do not understand what is the key to the business and they cut back on support and training for staff, and staff turnover goes up and the ability to form relationships, which is fundamental to success in this area, is in question. I highlight that concern, but I welcome the fact that some national standards are being proposed.

I rather approve of all the amendments in this group for different reasons. They bring together the framework in which standards can be maintained. I was particularly struck by the fact that the Minister’s amendment has the slightly weasel words “as far as practicable”, which give the Government a let-out, whereas the amendment tabled in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay of St Johns, relates to penalties.

Returning to the contribution of the voluntary sector, which we all agree is so important in this, and the danger of it getting too much into the national framework of what a Government do, I am reminded of the noble Lord, Lord Dahrendorf, who was on the advisory committee of NCVO on which I sit, who constantly warned against any reduction in the innovative and constant regeneration of ideas to meet modern problems that the voluntary sector is there for.

It is likely that there will be contractual arrangements with voluntary organisations, and I am sure that that is absolutely right, and, if the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, is accepted in principle, there may well be penalties, but what about the other way? What if the Government do not live up to their contribution to get the contract entered into delivered on time? Have the Government thought about that? I picked up an idea from an earlier comment that they might well be prepared to renegotiate the terms and conditions of the service. Should there not be a little bit of give and take both ways? Should penalties not operate in both directions? I will be interested to hear what the Minister has to say.