moved Amendment No. 33A:

My Lords, I warmly endorse much of the amendment. Not for the first time—I am confident it will not be the last time—I find myself very much in agreement with the arguments of the noble Earl and his clarity is to be commended. In some ways, one can make a comparison with government Amendment No. 24, concerning the Probation Service. It responded to many of the similar arguments and decided to take a significant step forward, which I commend. The logic continues into this sphere.

We are agreed, and the Minister assured us at earlier stages of our deliberations, that everyone in the Prison Service is involved in rehabilitation. If we use the arguments about the challenges of rehabilitation in the context of the Probation Service, they would certainly apply to prisons. That underlines the importance of training, qualifications and relevant experience.

I am sorry to split hairs—if it is splitting hairs—but I have one query on the amendment. That concerns the wording of new Section 8C(2)(a). I think it is too rigid. While experience and authority, which go with seniority, are terribly important, we do not want to slip into a Buggins’-turn culture. Occasionally, there will be outstanding people, who can be moved into positions of responsibility earlier than might be the usual practice, and there should be room for that. It should not just be an exception, which might cause a cultural curfuffle in the institution concerned, but it should be accepted that that is the case.

Otherwise, I am very much with the noble Earl in all that he is arguing. Apart from the logic of the Government accepting the arguments on the Probation Service, to which they responded in Amendment No. 24, the important point is that increasingly very valuable work is being done in higher education in preparing police officers. At the outset, there was a certain amount of cultural suspicion about the process in the police force, but it is now recognised, more and more, that the right sort of people, with the advantage of more training and education behind them, can increase the effectiveness in the role that they play. That underlines the importance of the amendment, but I am sorry that I have a reservation on that one point.

My Lords, I, too, support the amendment of my noble friend Lord Listowel. As far as one can see, with end-to-end management, one would expect very little to be done without involving prison officers in the scheme. I noticed how few references there are to prison officers in the Bill, and yet they must be absolutely crucial to the whole set up. I see one on page 3, in Clause 3(5), which gives some indication that prison officers might be involved in carrying out and making arrangements for probation services. However, I could not agree more with what my noble friend has said.

The noble Lord, Lord Judd, commented on his concern about new Section 8C(2)(a), which states:

“the level of seniority required for the supervision of another officer”.

From an earlier discussion I had with my noble friend, I believe that that referred to the need for more support for probation officers and the same should apply within a prison. You need someone in whom to confide, to whom you can talk about your troubles. There has been far too little of that. I think I am right to follow up that point.

Coming back to this end-to-end management, it is crucial that we see all the members as part of the process. Hence the idea of the overarching training, which could involve different levels, with people taking it at different times and maybe for different services—even social services could take some part—but also, of course, with different levels of people. Perhaps people would want to stop at some stage, but otherwise they could go on higher and higher, getting more responsibility for dealing with the really difficult cases, which we need to concentrate on.

If and when the amendment is accepted—I hope that it will be—there will be a much greater role for prison officers in helping the young particularly. I want to get back to the possibility of concentrating rather more resources on some of the offenders, who we could get out of the cycle of deprivation and back into the world, where they would be more use to themselves and, indeed, to the rest of us.

I hope that this can be taken rather more seriously to heart—even better to hear from the noble and learned Baroness the Attorney-General that it is already well under way and that we do not need to worry.

My Lords, I support the general intention of Amendment No. 33. I absolutely agree with new Section 8B, but I have a concern about new Section 8C. I accept the minimum standards for supervision as an idea but, when the qualifications for a prison officer are set, I am concerned that the qualifications and training of middle management are frequently missed. The performance of middle management is one of the weakest things in the conduct of imprisonment. Individual prisons sometimes train individuals, but for anyone who knows anything about leadership the worst place to practise leadership is among your friends. People should be moved somewhere to learn the trade.

It would be sensible for the Prison Service to have central training—or at least a central training syllabus—with perhaps regional centres for middle managers. Untrained middle managers can undoubtedly undermine all the work done on the coal face with prison officers and prisoners. Therefore, in setting down a national framework, the professional qualifications must include the guidelines—the guidelines and training going back to the earlier amendments on training.

My Lords, I urge the Government at least to accept the principle behind the amendment, even if it might need redrafting in some minor details. If the argument is that this is unrealistic because the resources are not available, surely the answer is for the commencement of this section to be delayed until the resources are forthcoming.

My Lords, as ever I am grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, for tabling this amendment. Training for prison staff has arisen several times during our debates on the Bill, and it is helpful to be able to address the concerns in a coherent and joined-up fashion. Perhaps before considering the amendment, it would be wise to take the opportunity to pay tribute to the staff who work in our prisons. Their work is difficult, dangerous, thankless and very much hidden from public view, and of course they face particular challenges at the moment when the prison estate, as we know, is under great pressure. Yet, as all contributors to the debate have acknowledged, they have a crucial role to play in reducing reoffending, and one of the aims of this legislation is to make it easier for them to work more closely with probation staff in the community to that end.

The amendment itself deals with two distinct issues, training and supervision. I shall deal first with training. The Prison Service takes the training of its staff very seriously indeed. Prison officer entry level training is delivered over an eight-week period, as the noble Earl understands, with weeks one and five spent in the officers’ establishment. During the course, officers are trained in the purpose of the Prison Service, interpersonal skills, diversity, security, self harm and suicide, radio use, and control and restraint. Officers may then go on to train in any of a range of specialist areas according to their skills and, of course, the needs of the service. All establishments are required to produce a training plan which is integrally linked to an overall business plan.

Staff working with young people receive specialist training as specified in the service level agreement between the Prison Service and the Youth Justice Board. In 2006, the Prison Service management board approved funding for a new initiative called Professionalising the Prison Service. This is a three-year initiative that is designed to transform training across the service to ensure that staff are equipped with the right skills at the right time in their prison career. A key element is the introduction of a professional development framework. This defines clearly recognised development and progression routes for all staff employed by the service so that they have a clear understanding of the available career pathways. Learning will be competence-based and staff will be able to develop and extend their skills, knowledge and experience in order to maintain continuous professional development and, in many cases, progress to higher levels of responsibility.

From September of this year, the achievement of a level 3 national vocational qualification in custodial care will become compulsory for new prison officers. Failure to achieve this will lead to termination of employment as a prison officer. An optional level 2 qualification will be introduced for support grades wishing to make the transition to prison officer.

I do not think that it is necessary to make provision for this in the statute. Comprehensive information about the qualifications, experience and training required by a prison officer is already widely available in the public domain. We have agreed to make express provision in the Bill for probation training in response to particular concerns raised in the context of the new arrangements for the delivery of probation services. But the situation is very different in relation to the more established arrangements for prison training. There is no such statutory provision now and I do not think it is necessary for the future.

I turn now to the second part of the amendment, which proposes setting out the seniority of supervising officers and the length and frequency of supervisory meetings. This degree of operational detail does not need to be set out in such a rigid way or, for that matter, to be underpinned by statute as the amendment suggests. But I will seek to address the concerns which lie behind the amendment by setting out how supervision arrangements work in practice. Unlike staff in other parts of the offender management service, few prison officers work on their own, or out of sight of other officers or senior members of staff. Because of this, the supervision they receive is continuous, flexible and less dependent on formal procedures such as supervisory meetings. It is difficult to see how the publication of standards would provide any improvement in the current situation. Supervision and oversight differ according to local conditions and are presently managed well within such a framework. Standards in these circumstances would be difficult to establish and then to measure, and any increase in formal procedures is likely to add significantly to the burden of bureaucracy and the cost to the service without necessarily offering any corresponding increase in the quality of service delivered.

As to the seniority of supervision, which the amendment also seeks to prescribe, again it is difficult to see how such a standard could be effectively constructed or implemented. The Prison Service is already a very well structured organisation with a strong tradition of grades and seniority, and there is little day-to-day question about supervisory authority. But it is equally the case that the Prison Service has developed a strong reliance on multi-disciplinary teams, often led by managers who are not senior officers or any part of the officer grading structure but who provide supervision, oversight and, in some instances, even direct management of prison officers.

The purpose of the amendment is well understood and much appreciated, but its implementation and operation would be fraught with difficulties of definition and scope. For those reasons and the reassurance I have given, I hope the noble Earl will feel able to withdraw his amendment.

Let me deal with a few other points that came up during the debate. The noble Earl thought that prison officer training was going to be reduced to seven weeks. I can knock that one on the head. I made it clear from my speaking note that prison officer training is eight weeks; there has been no reduction and no reduction is intended. He also suggested that private prison staff were perhaps lacking in experience and poorly trained. Private prison staff undergo a thorough training programme, which is equivalent to that in the public sector Prison Service, and successful completion is a condition of employment. The course offers a variety of modules which are tailored to the needs of the learner and the post to ensure that at the end of the course the person has the necessary technical and general skills to perform their duties. The course they undertake is approved by the comptroller as being fit for purpose.

Course content, training standards and procedures are specified within the terms of each individual contract, which is an additional pressure point in raising standards. The comptroller is able to attend any training module he may wish and can request copies of all training materials given to staff to ensure that proper quality training is provided. The first private prison was opened, of course, in 1992, as has been much discussed today, and there is a significant amount of operational experience now within the system at all levels. This has been recognised by external bodies, such as the prison inspectorate, and the former head of the Prison Service, Martin Narey. I cannot accept that private prisons recruit people of lower calibre. They are delivering the standards which we require within the service and which we seek to set in contracts.

The noble Earl also referred to the Norwegian experience. The problem is that it is not easy to compare prison systems across Europe because the roles and duties of prison officers differ widely from state to state. Offender management arrangements have grown up on national lines and responsibilities in respect of offender management are often very different. I was interested when the noble Earl said that Norwegian staff came over to the United Kingdom. I can only assume that was because they thought they had something to learn from us, which is a good sign. We are keen to examine best practice; we certainly examine it from across Europe. There is considerable regard for UK Prison Service practices and we have attempted to share with our European partners our best practice. I was entertained to find out, for example, that in Bulgaria prison governors are being led by the experience drawn from an English prison governor who has advised them on their reform programme. That, too, is a good sign.

The noble Baroness, Lady Howe, made the point that there was a lack of reference to or mention of prison officers in the Bill. That is because the Bill seeks to change the arrangements for delivering probation services and increase the involvement of other providers; legislative change is not required for the Prison Service in the same way. Where it is right, however, the Bill makes provision particularly to clarify the role of probation staff in prisons and to enable prison staff to deliver programmes in the community, so it creates that necessary flexibility. That, in essence, explains why there are fewer references to the Prison Service and its particular needs and problems.

I have provided a rather long explanation but, I hope, a reasonably comprehensive one, and I hope that the noble Earl will feel able to withdraw his amendment.

My Lords, I thank the Minister for taking the time and trouble to make those helpful points. My impression, from discussing private prisons and visiting one, is that they can be very good, but there is pressure due to fewer people working on the front line. That is generally true. My understanding was that the eight-week induction is therefore recognised to be quite short for working in that sort of setting. Ongoing training on the job would ensure that we could be confident of the security of the work they do.

The Minister has helped me to a degree with what he has said, and I will study it carefully, but I am concerned that the day-to-day pressures of fewer people on the front line with such a large prison population—the fact that the staff have to walk with the prisoner from their cell to the gymnasium or wherever—appear to be preventing that continual training afterwards.

My Lords, I hesitate to interrupt the noble Earl, but when he says “fewer people”, I am not sure what he means. Fewer people than when?

My Lords, I mean the ratio of staff to a particular job: the number of staff on a wing or in a gymnasium. One might argue that they are being more efficient in what they are doing, but there is a drawback. As a senior officer, a man who runs a wing, said, “I can’t get off to train other people elsewhere, unlike those working in public prisons, because the ratio of inmates to staff is not as favourable in our settings”. But I will study carefully what the Minister said. I also appreciate the contributions from across the House—well, from this side of the House—on this matter. I did not intend anything by saying that.

I apologise for reading from a script. We have taken some time on the amendment, and I wanted to keep my contribution as short as possible. That is why I read so closely from a speaking note. What the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, said about training is what is spelt out in the White Paper on social care, Options for Excellence. To achieve the aim of raising the standard of professionalism of those on the front line, one has to concentrate on developing the first-line managers to ensure that, when they move from working on the front line to their first management position, they get a good start. One also has to look at the senior management to make that work. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 33 [Accommodation in which period of detention and training to be served]:

moved Amendment No. 34:

My Lords, I arise briefly simply to say that it is right that the matter is raised in the Bill’s context. I know that it is a matter that we have discussed on several occasions on Criminal Justice Bills in the past. That does not mean that it should not be raised again because it reflects the proper concern that noble Lords have with regard to the welfare of children.

The noble Lord, Lord Bassam of Brighton, will be all too aware that yesterday in the context of the UK Borders Bill I raised an amendment that would impose within the immigration system the duty to promote the welfare of children as under Section 11 of the Children Act 2004. I welcome the way in which the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, has moved the amendment, because it is right that we should continue to press the Government to try to work out the ways in which the needs of children and promoting the safety of children within the criminal justice system can be balanced against what we all want, which is maintaining the safety of the public. That is a theme of the later amendments to which the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, referred. This matter cannot be resolved at present, but we must continue to press it until we are able to find a solution.

I approach the matter from the point of view that children are children first and that at some stage they must come out of the criminal justice system and be responsible adults. If they come out in such a damaged way that they have no opportunity to act as a responsible adult, that is to the disadvantage of the whole of society. That is a glib thing to say, but it lies at the heart of what we are trying to achieve. Having made that point, I will not take part in the debates on the later amendments because that reflects my concern. I am going to try to pursue the matter, particularly through the UK Borders Bill, because there is a discrete matter there to which I hope we may be able to find a resolution. Within the context of this Bill, we will not find the answer.

My Lords, I, too, support the amendment. I am extremely glad that the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, has made those points because their great importance is having them in the Bill to remind people that our children must be treated as children. I say that bearing in mind my experience in trying to make this point as chief inspector when the provisions of the Children Act did not apply and it was alleged that they would be added to be applied in principle. That was not good enough and time and again one found that it was not happening. Therefore it is hugely important that it should be in the Bill and as the noble Baroness said it is right that things will flow from that if it is there, so I would like to see the amendment included.

My Lords, I shall try to put this very important subject into a human context. I well recall the late Lady Lester telling me how she had visited a child in prison who had been involved in one of the most hideous crimes that had happened in many years. It was a really horrible story. She said that what really distressed her as she got to know the child through visiting her in prison was the discovery that that child had never been loved.

My Lords, I endorse the amendment. Children’s well-being is still not stressed as much as it ought to be even though we know increasingly that the child’s well-being and involvement in their own process needs to be taken much more seriously. Other points will be raised later, but I make that one now.

My Lords, I say to the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, that I think that the noble Baroness, Lady Linklater, will be very pleased with him for having represented her so well. We send her our best wishes because we know that she has difficulties with which to deal.

I very much agree with the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, about the difficulties that we have in relation to children. They are children first but on occasion we have to deal with some of the most heinous offences which one or two of them commit. My noble friend Lord Judd is right to say that many of these children have never been loved by anybody. That is a tragedy for them. Therefore, we should pay the most acute attention to their welfare.

Courts dealing with children and young people are required to have regard to their welfare. That is provided for by Section 44 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933. This amendment would additionally require them to have regard to the young person’s well-being, in the light of the factors listed in Section 10(2) of the Children Act 2004.

The distinction between welfare and well-being is an interesting, important and rather subtle one. The House will have extensive opportunities to reflect on it during consideration of Clause 9 of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill, to which the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, referred, which was recently introduced in another place. I agree with her that that is probably the better place for these issues to be more fully debated. Clause 9 seeks to define the purposes of sentencing as regards young people under 18. It covers not only detention and training orders but all other forms of sentence for under-18s and therefore provides a more appropriate opportunity for consideration of this issue than the Bill we are considering today.

The amendment would also apply the duty to the provider of the establishment in which the young person was to be accommodated. Under Section 11 of the Children Act 2004, governors of young offender institutions, directors of secure training centres and local authorities are already required to have regard to the need to safeguard and promote the welfare of children. We consider that this clear duty, which covers all young people in custody and not only those who receive detention and training orders, is sufficient in itself. There is no case for a separate duty covering a less extensive range of young people in custody.

Therefore, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment. However, I commend him and the noble Baroness, Lady Linklater, for always ensuring that this children’s issue—as the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, said—is raised because it is important for us never to forget the importance of these issues. We shall deal with the other age groups on later amendments.

My Lords, I thank the Minister for that response. Perhaps we can discuss between now and Third Reading whether any small adjustments in the language of the Bill can meet some of these points. In the interests of not delaying the House on the next three amendments, I simply say that we must remember, with regard to this amendment and the three that follow, that the underlying purpose of the Bill is not just more effective offender management but also the reduction of reoffending and the size of the prison population. This applies in particular to the various special categories that we are dealing with and most to children coming into the offender management system for the first time. Having said that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

moved Amendment No. 35:

My Lords, I very warmly support the amendment. My noble and learned friend has repeatedly reassured us—and it is good to have heard her say it—that the whole task of everyone involved in the legislation is rehabilitation. We know that there are too many examples where young people in the age group referred to have been sent to prison and that no progress with them is possible—in fact, there is a negative effect. I need not go into all those arguments now because my noble and learned friend knows them better than I do and I am sure that she shares the concern. Sometimes in public policy, if it becomes clear that something should not happen, so long as there are arrangements in place which say that in exceptional circumstances it can happen, a process of rationalisation can begin and that approach becomes the easy option. Sometimes one just has to say, “It will not happen”. The amendment does not say that; as the noble Lord has explained, prison could still happen in extremis, with ministerial approval. This is a desperately needed and long overdue measure. I support him completely.

My Lords, I certainly understand the concern expressed by my noble friend Lord Judd and the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham; I am pleased that the noble Lord referred to the extensive debate that we had on the last occasion. He would then have read my Written Ministerial Statement on 8 May, in which I set out the actions we are taking in relation to offenders aged 18 to 24, both in custody and in the community. I think that there is general acceptance that that is probably the right bracket for us to look at, not least because of the differing rates of maturity and the difficulties that young people, who become young adults, face in that situation.

It is important for us to look at the consequences of removing the power to place such people in prison. They would be far-reaching and unacceptable. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, understands those consequences, and that he very much wants us to have a workable system. At the moment, I do not think that this is workable. I entirely agree that we need to give proper consideration to the needs of young adults; that is obviously what lay behind my Statement on 8 May. However, just as there is not much difference between a 17 year-old and an 18 year-old—as the noble Baroness, Lady Linklater, who is not in her place, said in Committee—there is little to separate the 20 year-old from the 21 year-old. It is of course necessary to have thresholds distinguishing “children and young people” from “young adults” and “young adults” from “adults”. The points at which we draw those lines are a matter of judgment and may be subject to change. We should not regard the age of 21 as a perpetually fixed point. The measures that I announced on 8 May cover 18 to 24 year-olds, so it would be odd if I were now to say that under-21s should never come into contact with anyone aged 21, 22, 23 or 24. That would put in tension and conflict the concept that we have just agreed—that that bracket is sensible for us to look at.

Of course we have to take steps to safeguard vulnerable young adults but the amendment, if enacted, would do nothing to achieve that. It would simply make the whole system unworkable. That is because, in a technical sense, all young people over 17 who are remanded to custody are “in prison”, though in reality they are likely to be in part of a young offender institution that has been formally designated as a prison for the purposes of the law. While the House shares the noble Lord’s concern for the welfare of young adults in prison, I am sure that it would not wish to add to existing operational difficulties.

The noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, raises an interesting suggestion as to whether there could be some form of ministerial oversight. I do not have the numbers at my fingertips at the moment, but I think that they might make that unworkable. However, I shall raise that with the Ministry of Justice. I recall that I would often ask for certain categories of cases to be referred to me, so that I had an overview of what had happened. It was not necessarily a case-by-case basis, but a report on how many and when, so that I could get a flavour. Maybe that could be in the contemplation. At the moment, the noble Lord’s suggestion does not simpliciter seem workable, but maybe we could look at something from a practical point of view that might assist, to hone in and make sure that the eye is kept on this ball. I would be happy to convey that to the Ministry of Justice.

My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Baroness for her answer, particularly for the last part of it. She mentioned that there is not much difference between 17 and 18 and between 20 and 21. In fact, there is sometimes very little difference between 15 and 24, and it is very much on a case-by-case basis. Bearing in mind that we are talking about individual offenders, this is an individual matter. It may be that when you look at it there are some fairly robust youngsters for whom this is not likely to do damage, but the Prison Service hopefully will know who those people are, and it is those special cases that one worries about.

I am grateful that the noble and learned Baroness is prepared to investigate that. The fact that it is being investigated may send a message round and stop people doing it unnecessarily. Sometimes it is done for convenience rather that thought of the person. Those cases used to worry me. When I found this happening, and asked why they were there, they had just been sent there. I am enormously grateful for the care that was taken with the answer. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendment No. 36 not moved.]

moved Amendment No. 37:

My Lords, I support the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, not because I know whether the exact form of words in it is right or whether this particular method will achieve its aim, but because I want to hear from the Attorney-General what we will do to inject some very necessary urgency into the issue of mental health in the criminal justice system. It would be odd to have on the statute book an Offender Management Act that did not seek to make effective provision for a situation in which 70 per cent of those in the criminal justice system have two or more diagnosable mental illnesses.

Surely, we have to admit that we have run as a society into a position whereby the number of such people who have found themselves in the criminal justice system—I do not belittle what may have been the consequences of many of their actions—has reached such a proportion that a Bill without such a clause would attend effectively to 30 per cent of those in the criminal justice system and not the other 70 per cent. I hope that the Attorney-General has something to say to us, if she does not feel able to support the amendment.

My Lords, I, too, support the amendment, very much for the reasons put forward by the right reverend Prelate. I shall make two or three brief observations. We have been reminded that the courts and the police have power. The prisons are still full of people who should not be there. Why do I say that? It is because the prisons and the dedicated staff who try to work with these people do not have the resources, training or qualifications to do the work necessary with people with mental problems or mental illness.

I said in Committee or at Second Reading that during my visits to prisons I have been impressed by the exasperation of some of the very best prison officers who, because of their general qualifications and insight, recognise that they are not doing any good. It is not just that they are not doing any good, but they are often aggravating the mental condition of the person in prison and increasing the likelihood of reoffending—it is not just a passive role with no impact. For that reason, the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, seems absolutely right. I am glad to support him in saying that this issue urgently has to be addressed, as the right reverend Prelate said, and I hope that my noble and learned friend will have something reassuring to say.

My Lords, I support the amendment also. It is crucial, as the right reverend Prelate pointed out, to deal with this matter urgently. A high percentage of offenders have some form of mental illness, and this is yet another area where women suffer more than men. The degree of mental illness, often more than one type of mental illness, is higher among women offenders than men. I hope that this matter will be given the urgency it needs.

My Lords, I do not wish to delay the House. We recognise that this issue overlaps with other legislation currently going through Parliament: the Mental Health Bill and the criminal justice Bill. The number of prisoners with mental health problems is part of the overcrowding problem. If we are to reduce prison overcrowding it must be dealt with. We would like to hear a clear message from the Minister about how the Government intend to give this much greater priority.

When I was a parliamentary candidate in Yorkshire, there were two large mental hospitals in the constituency I fought. Both have now become genteel suburban housing areas. We all recognise that too much of the mental health accommodation that was there until the 1970s has gone. That is one of the reasons we have ended up with people being misclassified into prisons. We need to reverse some of that. Part of that involves greater mental health provision, which this Government have not yet invested enough in, but it partly involves what we are talking about here; that is, ensuring that people whose problems are very much matters of mental health do not go straight into the prison system.

My Lords, the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, which we first discussed in Committee, as the noble Lord acknowledged—I am sad that the noble Lord was not here to discuss it with us, but he has retabled it—would require the Secretary of State to establish mental health diversion schemes to operate at all Crown Courts, magistrates’ courts and police stations. I made clear in Committee that, although we agree with much of the intent prompting this amendment, we do not agree that a legislative approach is the right way to achieve the outcome the noble Lord desires. We also desire that outcome, and other noble Lords who have contributed to the debate patently wish to see it.

I cannot agree with the noble Lord’s assertion that there is no way that the proposal can be properly implemented as it is. I shall explain why. We want to have effective court diversion schemes, and we plan to work towards improvement in this area. There can be no doubt that people who come into contact with the criminal justice system and who suffer from a mental disorder should be given the treatment they need. However, we do not believe that this should be achieved through legislation. The amendment is overly prescriptive and would not allow local arrangements to reflect local needs. With the creation of a devolved National Health Service, we moved away from a top-down, centrally prescribed system. Local communities and local NHS staff have welcomed that change. We have committed to reducing the number of central targets and have concentrated instead on providing a framework in which local arrangements can flourish and meet the needs of communities.

We fully accept that the court liaison and diversion schemes currently in operation vary in the quality of the support they can provide. There are areas of best practice, but there are also areas where schemes are failing to thrive. We also know that the better diversion services provide a range of multi-disciplinary team activities across the whole spectrum of the criminal justice system, and support the police earlier in the path to custody for those vulnerable patients who repeatedly come before them. We applaud these schemes and would wish to see more such services. However, the way to get there is not through legislation.

We are fully committed to publishing central guidance this year to the NHS and partner agencies, which support the development of local services that build on the best of what already exists. We believe that it is much more likely that schemes will develop out of this and be well supported if local benefits are clear to local commissioners, and if a strong evidence-based message is given by the centre. To be really effective, we argue, these schemes need buy-in from all the relevant agencies. We believe that the way to win hearts and minds is by demonstrating the evidence, providing examples of best practice and setting out a framework through guidance. As I said, we shall produce that guidance later this year.

We already know that the evidence from places where schemes work points to the importance of good governance, shared ownership, multidisciplinary working and schemes operating in an integrated system of offender care rather than in isolation. Factors such as multi-agency provision, financial stability, information-sharing protocols, effective leadership, an adequate level of staffing and clear role definition are vital.

The benefits may include support for local community safety targets, targets to reduce reoffending, improvements in the appropriateness and timeliness of treatment and earlier intervention—I sense that that was where the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, was coming from on this issue. If those who actually provide services on the ground understand the benefits, the support and enthusiasm will be greater and it is more likely that the services will prosper.

Statutory arrangements are already in place to enable the courts and the police to divert people into treatment for mental disorder. I made this point in the previous debate but I will make it again. The courts already have powers under the Mental Health Act 1983 to divert offenders to hospital for treatment. Under Section 35 of that Act, they may remand an accused person to hospital for a report on their mental condition, and under Section 36 they may remand an accused person to hospital for treatment. Also, the police have the power under that Act to remove a person who appears to be suffering from mental disorder to a place of safety. This is to enable him to be examined by a doctor and interviewed by a social worker, and to allow any necessary arrangements to be made for his treatment or care.

The Government fully accept that more should be done in this area but believe that we should work within the existing legislative framework and seek to bring change through other means. It is far better to convince communities of the need for these services than to dictate from the centre. We should allow local health commissioners to make their own assessment of the needs of their local communities and provide the right people and services in the right configuration to meet those needs. We take very seriously the concerns of the noble Lord who moved this amendment and all those who have spoken in favour of it today. I hope that the reassurance that I have offered will provide a good reason for the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, to withdraw his amendment. I was particularly surprised that—

My Lords, I fully accept the sincerity with which the Minister addresses us about the importance of a non-legislative approach. However, as I understand it, it will always be simpler and, from the point of view of the local community and its budget holders, cheaper to allow the custodial solution to be adopted. It will always be difficult to defend, in a local community, the provision of mental health services for offenders when they are not available for non-offenders. I therefore think that, against the Minister’s arguments against a legislative approach, is there not a case for some central setting of a direction and a real tendency to get us to move in the direction of more adequate provision in the urgent situation that we face?

My Lords, in the first instance, I said that legislative powers were available and that those powers were there for the courts and the police to use. Secondly, we are prepared to give leadership and guidance in this. I made two references to the value of bringing forward guidance, and I remind the right reverend Prelate, who I know is greatly experienced in the field, that we are committed to improving that guidance during the current year.

I shall take up one of the issues raised by the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham. He said that he had great difficulty and had to go to the Schizophrenia Society to find out how many diversion schemes there were. The number of schemes increased during the 1990s, when some £10 million of pump-priming was provided by the Home Office. We have worked with NACRO, and the database that we have jointly put together currently shows 143 schemes. We can identify other schemes as a product of the Revolving Doors report of 2006. So there is clearly a large number of such schemes in operation, and I am sure that they are doing extremely valuable work. NACRO’s survey says that most of those schemes operate for four or five days a week. Fewer than 20 per cent operate across the spectrum of police station, court and prison, but almost 50 per cent had some joint funding arrangements in place, usually with social services. Some are provided by the voluntary sector.

So there are a lot of data there and a lot more information that I am sure can be taken from the NACRO survey. That shows that progress has been made; it shows also that there is much more to be done. It is important that we persist in developing this. We are trying to ensure that the schemes work without the need for recourse to a centralist, rather bureaucratic framework. We want to encourage them through the adoption of best practice and effective guidance, as I just said to the right reverend Prelate.

I think that I have covered all the other points that were raised during the discussion. In conclusion, I tell the noble Lord that I understand the spirit behind the amendment. Clearly, we are going in the right direction. Much good work is being undertaken; the survey demonstrates that. More can be done, more can be achieved. I certainly see the need for it to develop, but we think that the legislative straitjacket that the noble Lord suggests in his amendment is unnecessary and may inhibit the development of good schemes. For those reasons, I urge him to withdraw the amendment, but I have found this a useful debate, and the points made have been very valuable to us.

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his answer. He will not expect me to agree with everything that he said and accept it, any more than he necessarily agreed with what I said. I am especially grateful to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Worcester for twice intervening with his habitual wisdom and understanding of the problem, and other noble Lords who have spoken, especially the noble Lord, Lord Judd.

I am not talking about how things are done but what things are done. That seems to be missing in all this. I am not after something that is legislative and bureaucratic; I am after a clear direction of what has to be done. All right, it is given to a health commissioner. Somebody must tell the health commissioner. They must be given guidelines and a framework. The Minister mentioned 143 schemes. How many courts are there in which there is no scheme? How many police stations are there where there is no one available on call to come to help? All that links with provision. Is there provision? Is there provision for children? Is there provision for women? What are the arrangements for that? This has been a crying need for goodness knows how many years, and it has failed through lack of overall direction. In a lot of the Bill, the Government have been keen to bring in direction on the grounds that provision has not worked, yet here they are refusing to introduce direction to something that has not worked. That is inconsistent.

Part of the problem is that ministries other than the Ministry of Justice and the Department of Health are involved. The Home Office is involved, because it controls the police. The sense of urgency that the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Worcester rightly mentioned is needed in this area, because the problem is not going away; it is getting worse. When I went to Winson Green prison, I discovered that they had a diversion officer in the prison to pick up those who had slipped through the diversionary net to make certain that, if possible, they did not get further than the first night, for which there were special arrangements. That shows that prisons are recognising that the system is not working.

I am glad that the Government are thinking about it, but I wish and hope that the new Secretary of State for Justice will consider the matter with the urgency that it deserves. I anticipate that he will; I know that he understands the problem because I spoke to him about it when he was in his previous post. I am happy to withdraw the amendment, which is not to say that I will not return with it on Third Reading.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

moved Amendment No. 37ZA:

My Lords, I support the amendment. My noble friend Lord Listowel is absolutely right that these are the most vulnerable children. They may have committed some pretty heinous offences. Equally, however, we know that their backgrounds were almost certainly a major contributory factor. Care Matters was a brilliant White Paper, and we very much hope that it will deal with most of these children’s needs. If my interpretation of it is right, it will apply at least as much to children who have ended up in prison, even though they were originally in care. The important thing is that the local authorities do not forget them—indeed, are not allowed to forget them—and see them as a continuing responsibility.

Brilliant voluntary organisations such as Home-Start, and certainly the churches, which are involved in many activities such as mentoring and really befriending a child in this situation who has probably never really had a loving, caring parent, are absolutely essential. It is absolutely crucial that extra special attention is paid to seeing that there are proper arrangements for accommodation, training and jobs. May we be reassured that the children who have ended up in prison will be at the top of the list? For goodness’ sake, let us use the resources that we hope will be saved as the cycle of deprivation continues unless stopped, with children ending up yet again in prison, to prevent them going into care and entering prison in the first place. That is where it should all begin. I know that the Government have quite a strong intention in this regard.

My Lords, I support the amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Listowel, if only because it has been known for a very long time that a large proportion of offenders, and therefore of prisoners, have been in care. One example of good practice comes from Northern Ireland. Lay representation for young offenders in institutions has been pioneered by Nacro, which has provided trained volunteers with whom young people in custody can share their personal problems and complaints. The representatives have been able not only to befriend them, which my noble friend Lady Howe mentioned, but to present their cases at disciplinary and other hearings. Is there an equivalent scheme in England and Wales? If not, could something similar be piloted, at least in a few areas?

My Lords, I am very conscious of the time. We have had a very powerful exposition in support of the amendment from the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, and some very helpful comments from the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, and the noble Lord, Lord Hylton. I know of a few pilot schemes that are similar to that described by the noble Lord, but I do not know whether any match it precisely. He made some very interesting points about how a peer group can assist young people to heal and change. That is an important consideration.

The noble Earl’s interest in this issue is well known. I commend him for it. His amendment draws attention to the disproportionate number of young people in the youth justice system who are looked after or who have previously been looked after by a local authority. I agree with him about the quality and nature of the Government’s White Paper. I could not have been more pleased by its contents and I share the warmth and enthusiasm that many people have expressed about it. Your Lordships know that that was published only a week ago. We set out how determined we are to improve the plight of children in care. We committed to the fact that the aspiration of the state for such children should be no less than each parent’s aspiration would be for their own child. We set out firm actions to make that happen. Therefore, the noble Earl is right to say that that aspiration—that responsibility—goes beyond the literal legal limit as regards their age.

In the White Paper, we recognise that, despite improvements to the outcomes of the lives of children and young people in care in recent years, there remains a gap between the outcomes of those in care and the outcomes of all children. For example, 9.6 per cent of children in care, aged 10 or over, were cautioned or convicted for an offence during the year—almost three times the rate for all children of that age.

The noble Earl has raised many questions. I can assure him that I have virtually all the answers, but I am very conscious that the House may not like me as much as it said it did earlier if I were to give all those answers. I ask the noble Earl whether I can take advantage of his kind offer to write to him on all those issues. I shall then be able to give a more comprehensive response. He has raised a number of very important issues. I have explained the current position in relation to children and I hope we will develop the new position soon. We wish to legislate in relation to the provisions that are contained in the White Paper at the earliest opportunity. I hope that will give him a little pleasure while he awaits my full, comprehensive answer.

My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble and learned Baroness the Attorney-General for her encouraging response. I look forward to hearing from her. I thank my noble friends for their contributions in support of the amendment. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 35 [Orders and regulations]:

moved Amendments Nos. 37A and 37B:

moved Amendment No. 38:

moved Amendment No. 39:

moved Amendments Nos. 40 to 42:

moved Amendment No. 43: