My Lords, before business begins, I take the opportunity to inform the House that I am to undertake an important departmental visit on Thursday, 5th October, when the House will sit. Accordingly, I trust that the House will grant me leave of absence.

asked Her Majesty's Government:

My Lords, the nature and extent of British military commitment in Sierra Leone are as the Foreign Secretary set out in another place on 6th June; namely, the provision of training and advice to ensure that the democratically elected Government of Sierra Leone have effective, accountable armed forces. Such armed forces are essential if there is to be lasting peace in Sierra Leone.

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for that reply which might have been the response on 6th June. However, much time has passed since then. With the end of the monsoon season in about a week's time, will the Government make an up-to-date Statement about the current military situation in Sierra Leone? There are a large number of questions to be asked. Most importantly, what steps are being taken to develop the Sierra Leone army command structure? If that is not satisfactory—it does not seem to be—will the United Kingdom be required to take it over?

My Lords, I am not surprised that the Answer is similar to that which would have been the case on 6th June because the policy has not changed. But we shall keep the matter under review. I am unaware of any specific request from the Front Bench opposite for a Statement; I may be wrong. However, if there is such a specific request, no doubt that can be discussed through the usual channels in the normal way.

It is relevant that the noble Lord, Lord Burnham, and the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, have been invited to the Ministry of Defence for detailed briefings in confidence on some of the more security sensitive aspects of British activity in Sierra Leone. I have no doubt that they will to take up that invitation as soon as possible.

On the chain of command, the noble Lord will know that IMATT—the training team, which is being established under Brigadier Gordon Hughes and other key staff in Sierra Leone—will be addressing the questions which the noble Lord rightly identifies as key to the future health of that country's armed forces.

My Lords, does the Minister acknowledge that the skill and commitment of our forces is recognised not only in Sierra Leone but throughout the Commonwealth? Does the noble Baroness agree that it would be a sad day if we were to interpret British interests so narrowly that we were riot prepared to come to the help of a democratic government in a former colony, especially one which has been confronted with such appalling atrocities?

My Lords, I agree entirely with what the noble Lord says. If I may say so, he states the Government's position eloquently. The situation is being kept under constant review. Not only is the training team in place to look at the chain of command and some of the longer-term issues about the armed forces in Sierra Leone to which we are committed; short-term training teams have also been put in to look at ways in which 1,000 Sierra Leone troops can be trained at any one time. I am happy to say that we have completed two such courses and that a third is under way. I do not think that there can be any doubt about the commitment of Her Majesty's Government in this respect.

My Lords, can the Minister confirm that the Chiefs of Staff accept that the present level of personnel and the quantity of equipment supplied are adequate for their task of retraining the Sierra Leone armed forces?

My Lords, I believe that the Chiefs of Staff believe that the personnel and equipment are adequate for the current task. What is under constant review is whether the security around the training teams is adequate; and whether there are other operational matters which would change our view about the number of British Armed Forces committed to Sierra Leone. As the noble Lord, Lord Wright, would expect, these matters are not set in concrete at any one time. They are kept under constant review by the Chiefs of Staff and, of course, by Ministers.

My Lords, perhaps I may return to a question that I asked some time ago. It is fully understood that these matters are always kept under constant review. However, what do the Government propose to do in conjunction with the government there to control the diamond fields, because unless some positive action is taken, I think that the noble Baroness will agree that there is little hope of making much progress?

My Lords, the noble Lord is entirely right. Part of the root of the dreadful conflict in Sierra Leone is the exploitation of diamonds. I am happy to say that Britain has taken a lead in the international community's efforts on the issue. We have been a key player from the start in the South African-led Kimberley process, which has recommended an international rough diamond certification scheme. We have also led the way in pushing for a UN Security Council ban on the import and export of Sierra Leone rough diamonds not certified by the Government of Sierra Leone. Not only are we doing what we can on the ground, we are making efforts to control the diamond trade, which has been at the root of so many of the appalling atrocities that we have seen in Sierra Leone.

My Lords, in reply to Questions, Ministers have said that we are supplying arms to the forces that we train in Sierra Leone. Who is supplying arms to the rebels and what steps are being taken to stop that supply?

My Lords, the noble Lord is right. When we have supplied arms, it has been in accordance with United Nations Security Council Resolution 1171. The shipments have also been notified to the UN sanctions committee. I shall write to the noble Lord with whatever information I can put into the public domain on arms supplies to the rebel forces. However, I hope that he understands that a great deal of that information is likely to be intelligence-sensitive and security-sensitive, so it may not yet be possible to give as full a reply as I should like. Armed conflict continues in Sierra Leone. There are 300 British troops there engaged in the tasks that I have outlined to your Lordships. We should not wish to put in the public domain any information that might in any way jeopardise their security.

My Lords, will the Minister say something about the relationship between the British forces in Sierra Leone and the United Nations? I have been puzzled by various remarks from Conservatives calling for British troops to withdraw and leave it to the United Nations, as if the UN had nothing to do with this country. We are a permanent member of the Security Council. Does the Minister recall her colleague, the right honourable Clare Short, saying some weeks ago that the peacekeeping operation in Sierra Leone was a test case for the future effectiveness of the UN in its peacekeeping role?

My Lords, as the noble Lord knows, the UK troops in Sierra Leone are not part of the United Nations mission in Sierra Leone. The UNAMSIL troops come from a variety of countries. I am sure that the noble Lord knows which countries have contributed what, but I shall be happy to write to him with details. Our main task in Sierra Leone is training to ensure that the Sierra Leone armed forces of the future will be responsive to a democratically elected government. We do not stand completely outside UNAMSIL in that task. Of course there is proper liaison with UNAMSIL troops and of course we notify UNAMSIL of our troop movements and expect to have notification back. I am sure that the noble Lord also knows that my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary has been in contact with Kofi Annan, the Secretary-General of the United Nations, and that we keep the provision of our Armed Forces under review in that respect. We have proper liaison both on the ground and through my right honourable friend and his contacts with the United Nations.

asked Her Majesty's Government:

My Lords, both the European Commission and the International Energy Agency provide opportunities for Ministers and officials from all member states to discuss experiences and exchange information on issues relating to the oil market. The European Commission has no specific remit on oil prices but co-ordinates member state discussions on a wide range of areas from energy supply security to competition in the motor fuel sector. The International Energy Agency's objectives are to provide independent analysis and factual information on crude and petroleum product markets, to maintain a system for coping with a major oil supply disruption and to maintain contact with non-members and international organisations on energy developments.

My Lords, I thank the Minister for that information. Does he agree that volatility in oil prices is likely to persist and will continue to cause serious disruption? In those circumstances, does he agree that the Government, in conjunction with our partners in the EU and the IEA, should consider longer-term solutions than the emergency measures now being contemplated? Should not such solutions include a serious effort to encourage the use of alternative fuels in the transport sector, such as natural gas and electricity, for which the technology has been fully developed? That would have considerable climate change advantages and a suitable regulatory framework would be needed to encourage such developments.

My Lords, crude oil prices are likely to remain volatile. There are no obvious long-term solutions that would prevent such fluctuations, particularly as in this case the problem is caused by particular disruptions on the product side as well as the imbalance between demand and supply—which obviously one can do something about. It goes without saying that in the long term we must continue to develop alternative technologies and sources of energy, because that creates greater diversity, which is essential.

My Lords, did the Minister see a graph on this subject in the Financial Times a couple of weeks ago? It showed that at the beginning of each recent decade—1969–70, 1979–80, 1989–90 and today—there has been a sudden rise in the wholesale price of oil. Has his department done any analysis to determine why that happened—he has explained today's hike, but not previous ones—and, more importantly, why the price subsequently came down?

My Lords, I am afraid that the answer is very simple, as it is on almost all such questions about supply and demand. This House will understand that with a commodity such as this, which can be traded and where supply and demand shift, this issue will arise constantly. It is interesting that in this House not more than 18 months ago we were talking about low oil prices. Many people made the point that we had perhaps entered a new era of low oil prices. It is interesting that today people are saying that we are entering a period of very high oil prices. The reality is that over that period there have been ups and downs relating to supply and demand and no fundamental change has taken place in the underlying structure of that particular industry. Therefore, I believe that this issue does not require more than a simple analysis of supply and demand.

My Lords, the Opposition have suggested that 3p should come off the price of petrol. Does the Minister believe that that is a suitable response to the price of oil?

My Lords, Mr William Hague made a very good point on that particular issue when he said on 13th September 2000:

"We would not cut taxes today because there has been a protest yesterday. You can't run the country like that".

Apparently, that policy lasted about one week.

My Lords, perhaps I may return to the original Question. I was a little puzzled by the Minister's description of the work of the International Energy Agency. It is an excellent organisation and one which a long time ago I had the privilege of chairing. It co-ordinates within the OECD all the interests of the oil-consuming countries, including all the European countries. Can the Minister explain more clearly what European Union involvement brings to the party and what value it adds? From the reports that we have had it seems that the pronouncements from the European Commission have rather destabilised the situation. Is it really helpful to have this fifth wheel on the coach?

My Lords, I believe that one must be clear that the International Energy Agency remit is restricted to four particular areas: co-operation on energy conservation and alternative energy sources; information on international oil markets; co-operation with oil-producing and oil-consuming countries to develop stable international energy trade; and planning against risk or major disruptions. I do not believe that there is consensus within that body as to any action that it should take on market carnet. However, as I explained at the beginning, the EU has very little remit on this issue other than that which comes from the question of the directive relating to countries holding supplies for emergencies.

My Lords, particularly in the current situation, would it not be helpful if Iraq were brought back to full production? Can the Minister confirm that America is now buying Iraqi oil hand over fist, albeit through third parties?

My Lords, clearly anything which increases the supply of oil will help this particular situation. However, whether that is desirable is, of course, another question.

asked Her Majesty's Government:

My Lords, the creation of Select Committees principally is a matter for the relevant House of Parliament. The Government are open to considering ways of contributing to efficient and effective parliamentary scrutiny of treaties, as we made clear in evidence both to the Royal Commission's inquiry on the reform of your Lordships' House and to the inquiry into the parliamentary scrutiny of treaties by the Procedure Committee in another place.

My Lords, I thank the Minister a little for that Answer. However, could not the Government give a stronger lead on this issue? Has not the matter been seriously delayed since my noble friend Lord Lester of Herne Hill first raised it in this House? Is this not an ideal matter on which the House of Lords, with its very good reputation for dealing with the consequences of the European treaties, could exercise more widely the parliamentary role of scrutiny as regards treaties? Will the noble Baroness remember that, in these days of old Labour and new Labour, one of the oldest of the Labour Party's commitments in international affairs is to have parliamentary scrutiny of treaty-making?

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that reminder but I hope that he will take it well when I say that in fact no such reminder was needed for Her Majesty's Government. The Government are aware of the recommendation in the report of the Royal Commission that the Liaison Committee should consider the establishment of a Select Committee to scrutinise treaties and of the recommendations in the report by the Procedure Committee in another place. Both reports are still being considered and the Government will respond in due course. If requested to do so, the Government will, of course, make a contribution to any inquiry by the Liaison Committee. This is very much a matter for the Liaison Committee and I believe that everyone in this House knows that the issue will be in safe hands.

My Lords, is my noble friend aware that, in the course of the evidence given jointly and in agreement by the German and French ambassadors before your Lordships' House Select Committee on European matters, it was announced that, if necessary and acting jointly, France and Germany would proceed to draft treaties at the second level without bothering governments at all? Does not the noble Baroness consider that we need to be exceptionally vigilant that matters which affect our own status within the European Union are discussed and agreed at the proper level rather than below the top level?

My Lords, I can reassure my noble friend that Her Majesty's Government are being very vigilant in relation to those matters. My noble friend will be aware that there are special procedures for EU treaties which provide for scrutiny through the House of Lords Select Committee on the European Union and its sub-committees and the House of Commons European Scrutiny Committee as well. I suggest respectfully that it is an achievement of this Government that instruments in the inter-governmental field of common, foreign and security policy and justice and home affairs are now subject to scrutiny through the introduction of the scrutiny reserve.

My Lords, is the Minister aware of the chronology or timetable? I introduced the Bill into the House four years ago in February 1996. Ten Members of your Lordships' House gave evidence to the Select Committee of the noble Lord, Lord Wakeham, in support of there being a treaty scrutiny committee in this House. As the noble Baroness indicated, while saying that it was unnecessary for the other place to have such a committee, in July this year the second report of the Procedure Committee of the House of Commons effectively commended the recommendations of the committee of the noble Lord, Lord Wakeham. Those recommendations stated that we, as a House, are capable of scrutinising treaties, with retired Law Lords, retired members of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and other Members of the House who are expert in this matter being well suited to the role.

Finally, is the noble Baroness aware of the principle of the unripe time, which teaches that one should not do today something which needs to be done today on the ground that the time is unripe and it should therefore be done tomorrow or next year?

My Lords, I say straightaway that I am aware of the chronology. Perhaps I may commend the noble Lord for his assiduous efforts since 1996. He has, indeed, pursued the matter with great energy and vigour to good effect. I am aware of the Procedure Committee's recommendations and that the report stated that the idea of a Select Committee in this House may have merit. The noble Lord will know that, when the Liaison Committee comes to consider this issue, it will be a matter for that committee. I hope that since 1997 the Government have demonstrated their total commitment to scrutiny. The explanatory memoranda that now go with the treaties have greatly enhanced the ability to scrutinise. They have been made available and are being used extremely well. Your Lordships should be certain that Her Majesty's Government will continue to look for ways in which they can assist and ensure that open government is a reality.

My Lords, as a graduate from old Labour, perhaps I may invite my noble friend to confirm that it is government practice not to defer undertaking treaty obligations in international law until Parliament has indicated its approval of the consequent legislation. Would it not be a way of facilitating and expediting that process if a Select Committee could examine the implications and assure Parliament, in a proper case, that the obligations were appropriate ones to undertake?

My Lords, there may be much force in what my noble and learned friend says. It is a matter for the House and its sub-committee. If the Liaison Committee felt it was appropriate, it could invite the House to set up such a committee. It is not appropriate for me to comment on that. It is a matter for the House and I have, as I am sure everyone else in this House has, every confidence that the Liaison Committee will look at this matter with the appropriate degree of concern, energy and erudition, in the way that it has dealt with other matters before.

My Lords, is it not the case that the Liaison Committee has been looking at this issue and the matter has been put aside pending the result of Commons discussions as to the possibility of a joint Select Committee between both Houses? Would it not be better if the Commons got back to work and then we could move on with those matters?

My Lords, there are many in this House who would endorse the noble Lord's comment about the Commons getting back to work, particularly since everyone in this House is working so hard. But in due course we shall have that advantage. When the House of Commons returns, we shall be able to take forward those matters. I am sure that we all long for that day when we are joined by our colleagues in the other place.

My Lords, while the noble Baroness is right to say that this is indeed a matter for the House, will she give the House an assurance that the Government will do nothing to impede a decision by the House to set up such a committee?

My Lords, I am sure that the noble Lord knows better than I, having been in this House for some considerable time, that Her Majesty's Government can do nothing in relation to frustrating the way in which this matter is dealt with. I also commend to the noble Lord's attention the robustness and vigour which goes with the membership of any committee of this House. He will know that everyone here will be vigilant to make sure that the Government do not trespass in an inappropriate way.

asked Her Majesty's Government:

My Lords, the Government have made it clear that they wish to look at ways of increasing the representation of women in Parliament. The Constitution Unit report referred to in the Question suggests that it may be possible for political parties to take positive action to achieve that without incurring a successful legal challenge. The Home Office will examine carefully those proposals to see whether legislation can be introduced.

My Lords, I welcome the Minister's reply. I hope that noble Lords from all sides of the House will join in putting on pressure to ensure that the Home Office sees that as a priority. Of course, it is not just in Parliament but also in local councils throughout the UK that women are vastly under-represented. I am sure the Minister would agree that it is not that there are fewer able and talented women but it is simply that there is still an invisible wall and a culture which has prevented them coming through.

Does the Minister agree that the Government must act rapidly so that we do not go into another election, and perhaps the one after that, with the same situation? Parties should be willing to take positive action and should not be afraid of doing so. Parties unwilling to take any action—and this morning, the Conservative spokeswoman sounded as though her party does not want to take any action — should be unable to hide behind the pretence that they are unable to do so.

My Lords, I very much agree with the noble Baroness that this is a question of culture change as well as of changing the law. As I said in my original Answer, the Government are asking the Home Office to look at the possible changes to the electoral law which might bring about further action. My party stands very firmly on its record of having achieved 101 women Members of Parliament and having achieved around 50 per cent of women representatives in both the Welsh Assembly and the Scottish Parliament. It is instructive that both the noble Baroness's party and the Conservative Opposition are represented by only 8.5 per cent of women membership in the House of Commons. I hope that the noble Baroness will not take it amiss but it was not an indication of culture change in her party when the woman MP who led for the Liberal Democrats on those issues was replaced by a man.

My Lords, will my noble friend join with me in expressing extreme concern at the attitude of Theresa May, the shadow Minister for women's issues, who said on BBC Online on 6th September:

"I do not believe that young women who wish to have families should consider a parliamentary career until their families are in a position where they can easily be left".

Does my noble friend agree with me that the noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher, may not agree with that since she came into the House when she was 34, when her twins were six?

My Lords, I cannot do better than my noble friend has done in pointing out that somewhat anomalous position between the history of the Conservative Prime Minister who was a woman and the remarks of the present spokesman. This is a very serious and important issue. All parties need to look at their electoral practices and selection processes to make sure that the most able people are selected in seats which are winnable, whatever their gender.

My Lords, does the Minister see any force in the point that I made years ago that we should be able to think we had reached somewhere on this point when a woman was at the Ministry of Defence and a man was spokesperson on women's issues? Does she agree further that it is part of the reputation of Parliament to put this matter right? That is something which is far above party and should be of urgent concern to us all?

My Lords, yes, I certainly agree with the noble Earl's last comment. That was the point I made in my initial responses when I said that the Government were asking for the electoral law to be looked at in that context. I am delighted that my noble friend Lady Symons of Vernham Dean is here, representing the Ministry of Defence. She is an illustration of precisely what the noble Earl is looking for.

My Lords, before the noble Baroness preens herself too much on her party's 101 Blair babes, perhaps I may remind her—and does she not agree?—that the first lady Leader of this House was my noble friend Lady Young on the Conservative side and the first lady Prime Minister of this country, and indeed the only one to date, was my noble friend Lady Thatcher. Perhaps she can tell me when she thinks there may be a Labour lady leader.

My Lords, I suspect it would be a woman leader. Of course, I accept what the noble Lord said. I have made it clear on many occasions, both privately and in this House, how grateful I am to the noble Baroness, Lady Young, for the helpful suggestions that she has given to me in this role.

My Lords, is the noble Baroness the Leader of the House aware that under the law as it stands, there is great scope for the political parties to take effective positive action; that if they do not do so, they may well be liable for indirect discrimination? That applies to race as well as sex discrimination. Does she agree with me that one way of securing much better representation for women and for the ethnic minorities would be to have a proportional system of voting?

My Lords, I know that this point is made fairly regularly from those Benches when this issue is discussed. Of course I am aware of the concerns which the noble Lord expresses. As I understand it, the helpful point made by the report referred to in the noble Baroness's question is that one could achieve a different degree of positive action by political parties under the electoral law rather than the employment law, which has impeded the progress which the Labour Party was trying to make and which, as I am sure the noble Lord is very well aware, was challenged successfully in the courts. As I said, we believe that it is most worth while to pursue a solution in the direction of electoral law.

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

Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Bassam of Brighton.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

House in Committee accordingly.

moved Amendment No. 1:

Page 2, line 8, at end insert ("and of property").

I support the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, which makes a lot of sense. In considering the aims of the probation service it is right and proper that we should not just look at matters relating to persons, but also to those relating to property.

I suspect that if the Minister were to examine crime figures he would find that the matters of property damage and property theft and so on feature highly, particularly when he looks at matters like theft from cars. The police seem to have given up on such matters.

When the Crime and Disorder Bill was discussed in this House, particularly in relation to racial matters and harassment, the Attorney-General was supportive of a move on my part to look at the matter of racially aggravated criminal damage against property. That issue caused a certain amount of concern in the community. I believe that we should seriously consider the matter of property being included in the aims of this clause.

I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her kind comments on the groupings. We like to believe that we have been as accommodating as we can be. I trust that the debates will be reasonably well focused. It is also important to ensure that we have sensible groupings. No doubt we have arrived at such a situation.

On Amendment No. 1, I well understand the concerns about crimes against property. Such matters have to be taken seriously. Crime against property is a crime against the community. However, in this Bill we are talking about the aims of the new national probation service. We feel that the current aims are those that are the most important, but we do not want to dilute them. We believe that an addition of this nature would dilute those clearly stated aims contained in Clause 2.

The aims of the service have been carefully devised to inform everything that the service does. Adding extra words to the aims of the Bill and adding new aims would dilute and reduce the focus of a new national service. On the specifics of the issue, protecting the public already includes protecting them against property offences.

The aims of the service have been carefully devised. They represent the key areas in which the service must make a difference. They are generic aims that will be applicable to the service's work with all offenders. However, the amendment refers to specific aspects of the work of the service and, while I agree that it is important—nobody would want to detract from the importance of considering property offences—we believe that it is too narrow to form part of the statutory aims.

If we are not to put everything into the aims, and thus run the risk of diluting them, in our view we need to concentrate on the global issues. The original clause does precisely that and for that reason I commend it to the House. However, it is worth bearing in mind that aims are only aims and ought to be distinguished from functions, which are set out helpfully in Clause 2.

We want the new service to concentrate on those activities which reduce crime. I thought that there was a consensus in this House on that issue. In many cases the way to reduce the likelihood of an offender re-offending is by assisting his or her rehabilitation. For those reasons I call upon the Committee to reject the amendment.

The Minister thought he was being accommodating with the groupings. On one line there were 41 amendments covering 18 different subjects and on another there were 153 amendments in one grouping. I regard that as aggressive grouping and certainly not accommodating.

On the Government's argument about the amendment, first, I agree with the Minister in that there is absolute consensus across this House, and I suspect in another place too, that preventing and reducing crime has to be the focus of the criminal justice system. However, the argument that to ask the Probation Service to concern itself with the protection of the public and property is to dilute the focus has little intellectual validity. Protecting property is as important as protecting the public. My suggestion is pretty inoffensive but has brought about a pretty lousy response.

Having heard what the noble Baroness has said, will the Minister ask the House to reject an amendment of such little form? I urge him to consider this matter between now and Report stage. There will be a great deal of uneasiness about the reply that he has just given. It will be a great pity if we start off the Committee stage of an important Bill with a Division on a matter of this kind. It would be far better to see whether there could be some meeting of minds between now and Report stage.

I always like to be accommodating where it is useful to be so. Of course, the Government continually reflect on matters, but at this stage I am content with the aims as set out on the face of the Bill.

moved Amendment No. 2:

Page 2, line 10, after ("proper") insert ("and effective").

I listened carefully to what was said by the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, but I have a problem. I suspect that meting out effective punishment is a matter for the courts. While I subscribe to the idea that the type of reports produced should address that issue, I believe that effectiveness should be left to those who dispense justice.

There is wide variation between sentences passed in different parts of the country. Even in neighbouring areas one sees considerable discrepancies in the way in which similar offences are dealt with. I therefore understand the public's concern about how one achieves an effective punishment. But if "effective" punishment means looking at community penalties, or trying to prevent people being pushed into overcrowded prisons, I have a great deal of sympathy with the proposal. However, if "effective" simply means being tough and sending people to prison, I have a problem with that.

The amendment attempts to change the aim of the service. In part, it is a re-run of an earlier argument.

The current aims as stated in the Bill are generic. They are not intended to be precise in their terms, but we believe that they are in general terms the most important. I believe that to add to them would begin to dilute them. The aims have been carefully devised to inform everything which the service does. We believe that they can do that by their generic nature. Adding extra words would reduce the focus.

I am not sure what adding the word "effective" would achieve. We all want to see effective practice both in terms of the enforcement of orders and the rehabilitation programmes which are successful in reducing reoffending. I congratulate the noble Baroness on her important role in ensuring that "What Works" had a good start in life. We believe that it is effective and that we have added to that effectiveness. I am happy to try to facilitate the noble Baroness's wisdom by providing her with any background briefing she might want to receive on the "What Works" programme and on what is proving to be effective in the Probation Service.

We do not believe that adding the words "effective" or "appropriate" to a Bill of this nature is a good idea. It could cast doubt in cases where similar words do not appear; in other words, whether other things need to be done effectively or appropriately.

The aims of the service are carefully devised to inform everything that the service does. For those reasons, we cannot support the amendment, although we support its spirit. We want the service to be effective and that is our shared concern. There is consensus about that and I congratulate all those who have played a part in securing that consensus for the service.

I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, that it is for the courts to dispense punishment. Indeed, if that were followed through logically the entire line should be removed from the Bill. It asks the Probation Service to be concerned with the application of proper punishment. It is not the role of the Probation Service to administer punishment; its role is to supervise the punishment which is meted out by the courts. I argue that it should do that effectively. Acting "effectively" is not just about being tough or returning people to prison; it is about being so effective that fewer people reoffend. That is the meaning to which I was referring.

The Minister said that he would provide me with any briefing that I need, but I was asking for it on behalf of the whole Committee. Our debates would be informed if we had that information. Has there been an evaluation report on the "What Works" approach? If so, can we see that? What are the current overall statistics as regards reoffending? What are the best and worst practice figures? Would it be helpful to produce that information before we meet again? It would certainly be helpful to me.

Clearly, the Minister will not accept the word "effective". I shall withdraw my amendment, but I want to think about what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia. I hope that we can include a provision in the Bill which properly reflects my point that the aim of the service should be to be as effective as possible in overseeing the proper punishments which ate meted out by the courts. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

moved Amendment No. 3:

Page 2, line 10, at end insert—

("( ) ensuring offenders' awareness of the effects of crime on the victims of crime and the public").

I support the sentiments expressed by the noble Baroness, which make a lot of sense. Some time ago, a number of us attended a conference on rehabilitative justice arranged by the noble Lord, Lord Warner, with participants from America, Canada, New Zealand and Australia. There was remarkable consensus on taking public perception into account. I understand that that is being seriously considered by the Home Office. If so, it should be included as an aim of the Probation Service. That applies equally to education.

Amendment No. 5 in my name is about the rehabilitation of offenders. I was surprised to hear the Minister say, when speaking to Amendment No. 1, that the aim of the service was the rehabilitation of offenders. Where is that wording to be found? I cannot find it. If the Minister thinks now that it is included but finds that it is not, he should consider including what is a fundamental aim.

We are surprised that the existing objective of the rehabilitation of offenders is omitted, particularly in respect of the Probation Service—to be replaced by,

"the proper punishment of offenders".

The supervision of offenders is not a process of continual punishment. That would be counterproductive and perpetuate criminality, not reduce it. Community court orders are handed down by magistrates and judges as a punishment but not for punishment.

The aims and functions described in Clause 2 would not address the underlying problems that contribute to offending behaviour—education, training and work, emotional difficulties, poor housing, anti-social behaviour and so on. Attention to rehabilitation is a priority to ensure that there are fewer victims in future—an aim to which we all subscribe. Unless the courts and public clearly understand that the rehabilitation of offenders is a prime function of the Probation Service, it will be undermined.

Of the service's other aims, contributing to the protection of the public is achieved through reducing offending by participation in effective programmes and group work—but neither process by itself addresses the underlying causes of criminality. It is right and proper that the rehabilitation of offenders should be one of the primary aims specified in the Bill.

I understand the arguments made by the noble Baroness and the noble Lord but I cannot agree. There is some confusion between aims and functions. The word "rehabilitation" is used in Clause 1 where it is described as one of the functions of the Probation Service. The function inherited by the Government as a central rubric was to assist and befriend offenders. We have moved on from there. It is important to have a clear statement in the legislation on the purposes of the service. Those are set out in the aims and functions but we should not confuse the two.

Will the Minister produce a document stating that a central aim of the previous government's policy for the whole Probation Service was to assist and befriend?

That is the term used in previous legislation. I believe it was used in the 1993 Act, having been inherited by the previous government from 1973 legislation. I speak from memory but that was the general rubric for the Probation Service. Clause 2 attempts to describe its aims and functions with much grater clarity. We do not want the service's aims and functions cluttered up or confused.

I accept the point that rehabilitation will be part of the Probation Service's core business in ensuring that people understand the nature and impact of their offending behaviour. The education of offenders when they are under forms of supervision will also be important. It is our intention to ensure that education and training are provided in the community for those who are released from prison after serving part of their sentence.

We warmly embrace the need to ensure that offenders are made fully aware of the impact of their criminal activities. As a Government, we have been championing victims and ensuring that courts are made aware of the impact of particular crimes, through victim personal statements and so on. We need to ensure that the public are educated about those points.

We agree that it will often be necessary for the Probation Service to assist in educating offenders on a number of important social issues but we are not satisfied that that needs to be among the service's statutory stated aims. We want to position the national service as an agency within the criminal justice system as part of its law and order work. It is no longer right to view the Probation Service as a social work organisation, as it has partly been seen in the past.

Although I agree that such work is important, it is too narrow to form part of the service's statutory aims. The Government have no intention of neglecting the appreciation of the impact of crime on victims. Far from it. That work is significant for seconded probation staff working inside prisons and in community activities. Education will have priority. We take seriously the lack of literacy skills that is clearly evident among many offenders—a key handicap to obtaining employment. Useful employment is one of the best ways of keeping people out of difficulty and out of trouble with the law.

We want the new service to concentrate on activities that reduce crime. In many cases, the way to reduce the likelihood of an offender reoffending is by assisting in their rehabilitation, which is why that is specified in Clause 1(1)(b) as an overarching purpose and function of the service. We think that rehabilitation goes much wider, to include all sorts of social needs with which other agencies are better placed to deal. We believe that to add a broad-based aim such as that proposed would deflect the focus of the service away from its primary role as a law enforcement agency. As ever, I am open to persuasion. We shall continue to review the way in which the aims are defined in legislation and reflect on these matters at greater length.

I thank the Minister for his courtesy and thoroughness in sending me copies of all the new government amendments tabled to the Bill. Since I merely attended, and did not speak at, Second Reading, I regard that as a truly formidable piece of care and observation. I am very much impressed. I also welcome some parts of the Minister's reply. I am pleased to hear that it will be a function of the service to see to the rehabilitation of offenders, but I cannot quite get my mind round the question: how will it be a key function of the service without being one of its aims? It is almost as if the Minister is saying that that is what the service will do when it is sleepwalking. I am sure that that is not his intention, but I do not quite follow the logic of that distinction.

From whichever quarter of the Committee we come, it is agreed that punishment will always be a key part of the system of criminal justice. It is not in dispute that where there is crime there must be punishment, but rehabilitation must always be one of the aims. The ultimate purpose of any attempt to deal with crime is that the person should not do it again, and normally punishment is a key part of that. There is a considerable overlap between the aims of punishment and rehabilitation but there is also a large diversion at the extremes. I had always understood that if, when a court decided whether to use imprisonment or probation, it chose the latter it was giving priority to the aim of rehabilitation because it believed that the chances of achieving it were sufficient to create a degree of optimism. That is a distinction of which any of us who have had any disciplinary power must have been aware in our own lives.

I shall not forget one of my pupils who, while an idle scapegrace, had considerable ability. My colleagues recommended quite stern disciplinary measures. Instead, I told him that I thought him capable of achieving a first if he thought it was worth bothering. My colleagues said that I was quite mad, but the individual in question did so. In that case, giving priority to the aim of rehabilitation had beneficial effects. There are a number of people who become involved in crime with a slightly smaller ration of mens rea than others. With a certain amount of help they can be put back on the straight and narrow, whereas if they are put into prison they will probably learn a great deal more about how to offend more successfully. As I understand it, those are the kinds of people who a re suitable for probation.

If the aim of probation is not rehabilitation, I do not know what it is. If we say that probation is seen simply as a punishment, a considerable part of the rehabilitative effect is diminished. A great deal of that effect consists specifically of the considered and calculated application of mercy, which Dorothy Sayers describes as the occasional generosity that is like a blow in the face. There are some who will be made to think about it, whereas if they are punished they merely become pigheaded and obstinate, which some people are quite good at. This restatement of the purpose may have the effect of diminishing the effectiveness of the whole service. I hope that the Minister will think again because this is a long Bill and, if we did not need to come back to the matter on Report, it could be in everybody's interest.

I am grateful for the interventions of the noble Earl, Lord Russell, and the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia. In the light of the response of the Minister to all of the amendments, I too am in some difficulty about how the Bill reads. As I understand it, the Government say that it is the function and aim of the service to protect the public but not property, to reduce reoffending and to achieve the proper punishment of offenders, which we all agree is a matter for the courts, and that the supervision of offenders is not a matter for the Probation Service.

Do I understand the noble Baroness to say she does not accept that one function of the Probation Service is the supervision of offenders? Perhaps the noble Baroness will clarify her remarks.

I am repeating what the Government say. The Government say that some things are aims and others are not. I tried to introduce the aim of effective punishment. Following debate, I believe that it is the effective supervision of punishment to which I refer, but that is not deemed to be an aim. The Government do not accept that one aim is to ensure the awareness of offenders of the effects of their crimes on victims and the public. It is not an aim of the Probation Service to educate offenders. I believe that it is preferable for "education" to be subsumed by "rehabilitation" because that is a broader term.

The noble Baroness draws too many inferences from the position she sets out. We want to see effective punishment, education and rehabilitation in the community. We suggest that it is better to define the aims and functions in the Bill in a broader and more generic way. Those matters will have a bearing on the way in which the functions are carried out and how the aims of the service are interpreted. That is the important point which perhaps the noble Baroness overlooks. I do not seek to be unhelpful. I almost agree with the noble Baroness that those activities are part of the core business of a probation service.

I find it difficult to follow the noble Lord's argument. Does the Minister accept that the National Association of Probation Officers, which looks after the interests of the Probation Service among others, has asked for "rehabilitation" to be stated as one of the aims of the service? What is wrong with including that particular word if the Probation Service itself is comfortable with it?

Rehabilitation is clearly set out in Clause 1 as a function of the service. We see it as an overarching responsibility of the service to achieve rehabilitation. As many Members of the Committee have observed, rehabilitation is part and parcel of ensuring that people do not reoffend and have to be punished in future. Rehabilitation is important, and that is why it is in Clause 1.

I cannot think of anything more broad and generic than "rehabilitation"; it covers so much of what the Probation Service is about. If the aim is ensuring an awareness of the effect of offenders' actions on victims and the public, and education and rehabilitation are not included, why is the protection of the public and the reduction of reoffending to be included? The reduction of reoffending is not nearly so wide as some of the matters that we suggest should go into the Bill. The Government dance on the head of a pin in seeking to produce arguments as to why the public should not be considered alongside property, the effective supervision of punishment and awareness among offenders of the impact of their activities on the public. What the noble Lord says is baffling.

The Minister also said in passing that the Probation Service is not a social work organisation. When I sat in the Minister's seat I made the same argument very strongly but received no support from his colleagues sitting on this side of the Chamber at the time. The fight to keep social work training for probation officers was vigorously fought in this place on all Benches. I lost miserably on that occasion. The argument was that the work of a probation officer was better served by social work rather than Probation Service training which made it central to the criminal justice system.

Perhaps the noble Baroness and I are at one on the issue of what is appropriate for training. I am glad that that is the case. My understanding is that the previous government unfortunately cut support for Probation Service training and indeed cut financial support to the Probation Service full stop. This Government have reversed those cuts and have begun to increase the level of investment into the Probation Service. I am grateful that the noble Baroness now supports our efforts to drive up standards, to improve training and the quality of training and the "appropriateness"—to use one of her own words—of training to the new Probation Service.

That was a wonderful piece of sidetracking. However, the point I was making was that there was no support from Labour shadow Ministers at the time for changing the focus of training for the Probation Service from social worker training to training for effective probation officer work.

The noble Lord may be willing to provide some more statistics. He rightly makes the point that one way to help reduce reoffending is to get people into work. It is a real part of the work of the Probation Service to rehabilitate people by finding employment for them, or, if it is unable to find employment for them, preparing them so that they are more employable. I agree with that. Given the rate of unemployment, which is, happily, at a low level, it would be helpful to know whether there is a correlation now between the level of crime and the success rate of the Probation Service. May we see some of the statistics over the past four or five years for the success of these new approaches and the degree to which they are working?

I hope I am not wrong. I thought I heard the Minister say that he would reflect on these issues between now and the next stage of the Bill. If that is the case, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

moved Amendment No. 6:

Page 2, line 24, at end insert—

("(5) The Secretary of State shall lay before each House of Parliament the conditions on which he makes any payment under this section.").

Amendment No. 6 is grouped with Amendment No. 58 which stands in my name. The proposed new subsection states:

"The Secretary of State must be satisfied that sufficient resources have been made available to a probation board to ensure that it can perform its functions".

The present clause confers on the Secretary of State the power effectively to take over a failing probation board and introduce any other means he thinks appropriate, including asking the voluntary or private sector to manage it. I have no problem with that, but it would be helpful to know how one effectively measures failure. I shall use some examples. Clause 10 states that the test of failure is that,

"it appears to him"—

the Secretary of State—

"that the board is failing".

We would argue that a stronger test than subjectivity is needed if the failure is to be proved. In any event, we believe that the service must be adequately resourced to ensure a fair playing field.

The present position is interesting. In the past five years the probation budget overall has seen a cut of 25 per cent in real terms. At the same time, caseloads have increased by 30 per cent and overall staffing levels have been reduced by 15 per cent. Last year the average cut for the Probation Service was 4·7 per cent. The Probation Service's three-year plan predicts that there will be a continued rise in the number of cases supervised and the number of reports written over the next two to three years. In addition, by 2003 the Home Office expects 60,000 offenders, or 40 per cent of the overall caseload, to have been put though the effective practice initiative. That is a series of programmes aimed at changing offenders' behaviour, which require up to 100 hours of intensive group work.

If attention is not given to the resource issue in the next 12 months, most boards will run the risk of being in default. That point needs to be thoroughly addressed.

There is truth in the maxim that all reorganisation leads to disorganisation. It has costs. My noble friend has just been saying exactly the same things that I remember the late Lady Seear saying on the National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990. It was the voice of Cassandra. It was not listened to and a great deal of damage has followed. I am tired of playing Cassandra; I would rather be listened to.

I always listen to the noble Earl and his wise words on these matters. I hope that during the course of these debates we achieve effective results as a product of listening.

Both of these amendments deal with payments relating to the work of the national probation service. Amendment No. 6 would require the Secretary of State to lay before both Houses of Parliament the conditions on which he makes any payment to any person for any of the purposes in Clause 1 of the Bill, whether it relates to reports to courts, supervision, the rehabilitation of offenders, giving effect to community orders, supervising people released from prison, or providing accommodation on approved premises.

Amendment No. 58 would require the Secretary of State to be satisfied that sufficient resources had been made available to a probation board for it to fulfil its functions. I well understand the concerns that have given rise to that amendment. But it is not clear that Amendment No. 58 would have any practical effect.

The amendment would be inserted at the end of the clause dealing with default powers and would appear simply as a statement.

We want to achieve a flexible and effective allocation of resources for a newly modernised national probation service. Given the detailed nature of the conditions and the extent and variety of payments made to the service, we believe that the amendments would perhaps lead to excessive scrutiny of the minutiae and detail of that service.

The Government require an effectively operating national probation service with unified leadership and of course control. But we are keen to resource probation services and to be effective in resourcing those services. The Government have made major investment. Under the first of our spending reviews we allocated an extra £127 million. This summer, in SR2000, we announced a further increase of £400 million. It is our intention over the next few years to increase staffing to the Probation Service by around 30 per cent.

We envisage payments for a range of purposes relating to the tasks of the national probation service. The payments will not only be to the local probation boards but, potentially, to voluntary organisation, external contractors, individuals and other bodies concerned with the criminal justice system. The conditions attached to these payments will need to be varied and detailed. It would be both unusual and unnecessary to place before both Houses the full conditions on which, for example, every payment to every voluntary organisation for probation-related work was made; nor would it be an effective use of resources to require the new Probation Service to supply that level of detail. The accounting and auditing arrangements in the Bill will provide the proper and appropriate level of public accountability. For that reason we do not support Amendment No. 6.

As I said earlier, Amendment No. 58 would add little to the Bill. We think that it is probably unnecessary, in particular in view of our funding commitments. As I read it, I do not see that it would provide a check on future governments who may be less inclined to invest in the Probation Service, because the clause would have very few teeth. For those reasons, we feel unable to support either of the amendments.

We have had a useful debate and I am grateful for that. Given the nature of the new service, which will be a centrally directed, national service, it is important that the basis on which the Secretary of State will operate is understood throughout the service; namely, the basis on which "adhocery" will be resorted to in a way that will be unfair or will cause injustice throughout the service.

If the amendment is unacceptable to the Government—I think that the arguments put forward by the Minister are persuasive—I still believe that, so far as concerns the service, there should be a proper understanding of the basis on which future funding will be made and the basis on which the Secretary of State's powers to intervene in or to procure (he will be in a position to delegate to a third party) provisions for the functions of the service. Such an understanding should be reached by a parliamentary decision, the production of a circular or other published information. That will allow the service to be confident about the way in which funding will take place.

The noble Lord has a weakness in that he always goes off at a tangent in order to comment on the Government's generosity with funding. However, these arguments do not at this stage address that point, although whatever the service's remit, one expects it to be properly funded. The arguments here are different from that. They concern how the Secretary of State will exercise his funding obligations and how to avoid allowing any degree of "ad hocery" to reign, thereby causing injustices. Both the service itself and this Committee need to be reassured on those points and I hope that the noble Lord will be able to find a way of providing that reassurance.

Perhaps I may respond to the final point made by the noble Baroness. She puts forward a good argument when she says that the means by which funds are allocated must be made plain to the service itself. No doubt we shall undertake to inform the service precisely of those means. However, I think that it would be inappropriate to put this point on to the face of the Bill.

I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 3 agreed to.

moved Amendment No. 7:

Page 2, line 27, leave out ("local") and insert ("probation").

I should like to speak to Amendment No. 10A tabled in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Dholakia. It covers the same point and I wish to add only a few remarks to those already made by the noble Baroness, Lady Seccombe.

I wish to make two points. First, the name of an institution is rather more important than is sometimes thought. The great British public is in a state of abject confusion because we change almost on a whim the names of many key elements of different parts of our national life. No sooner have people got the hang of a new name, when, lo and behold, a new administration brings in changes, including changes to the name itself.

Secondly, the public will be helped greatly if the names of the boards are to some extent self-descriptive. That makes common sense. To refer simply to "local boards" without adding a qualifying adjective provides a recipe for confusion. That name is totally unmemorable, forgettable and neutral—some might even say a little "Kafkaesque". The present name "local board" suggests nothing more and nothing less.

We strongly support this proposal. It will allow local boards to add a prefix to the name "probation board", so that we would have, for example, the "Suffolk Probation Board" or the "Birmingham Probation Board". Such names would be simple and easily understood. I hope very much that the Government will agree.

I should like to ask a question. Are these amendments in the wrong grouping? Should Amendment No. 10A be grouped with Amendment No. 10C? If that is not the case, this grouping does not make sense.

Perhaps I may assist. Not long before the House sat I was told by the Whips' Office that Amendment No. 10A was to be taken with Amendment No. 7. That means that Amendment No. 29 will be taken in its place, after Amendment No. 28 and before Amendment No. 31. I am very sorry if the noble Baroness was not given that information.

I shall repeat the order of amendments. Amendment No. 10A has been spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury. The new first amendment in that grouping, Amendment No. 29, will be taken in its normal place. I hope that this has not caused confusion for the Committee.

Both amendments address the same point and I believe that the Committee accepts that. I was brought up in the era of gas boards, electricity boards and so forth. Sadly, they are no longer with us. We now have names like Segas and Seeboard to reflect the fact that they are privatised organisations. Time has moved on.

The amendments seek to replace the reference to "local board" with the word "probation". We believe that that is unnecessary. It is unnecessary for a simple reason: calling the boards "local" boards emphasises their close relationship with the communities that they will cover. Furthermore, each local board will include the word "probation" in its title as well as the geographical area it covers. My argument that this provision is unnecessary is simply that it does not need to be included in the legislation. I do not believe that the amendments would achieve anything. However, I can give an assurance that the word "probation" will appear in each area board title.

If I understand the Minister aright, he has told the Committee that the word "probation" is itself on probation. I should like to ask him to take a little more seriously the comment made by my noble friend Lord Phillips of Sudbury; confusion is created by changing names.

I remember an older contemporary who never ceased to refer to Marylebone Station as the "Grand Central Station". Once one has fixed a name, it remains fixed. To start changing names engenders the kind of bewilderment felt by my wife—who was born and bred in Birmingham—when she tries to negotiate the city centre. It cannot be done.

I have listened to what the Minister has said, but it appears that, if the Government believe that the word "probation" will be used, then why should that not be included on the face of the Bill? We believe that that should be done. However, at this stage I should like to withdraw the amendment so that I can think about what to do next.

For my part, I should be very happy to have "local probation board" if the Government set store by "local". But the argument the Minister adduced for the importance of keeping "local" in the title is even more strongly to be advanced in regard to keeping the word "probation".

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

In calling Amendment No. 8, I must indicate that, if Amendment No. 8 is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment No. 9.

moved Amendment No. 8:

Page 3, line 1, leave out subsection (6).

It is my turn to be slightly puzzled by an amendment. As I understand it, the amendment would remove the flexibility to alter and reshape the probation service areas in respect of geographical boundaries and would place an obligation on the Secretary of State to lay before Parliament any plans for redivision.

We take the view that it is necessary to ensure maximum flexibility in the way in which we operate. The existing power in the 1993 Act to redefine boundaries is exercisable without any parliamentary procedure at all. With this legislation we are attempting to achieve an improvement on the current position. That is probably the best way to proceed. The existing powers in the Probation Service Act 1993 allow boundaries to be redefined without any parliamentary procedure at all. We are seeking to put in place an undoubted improvement which provides for changes to be made by a negative resolution. Of course, the Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Deregulation thought that this was a highly sensible way of proceeding.

We have listened to some of the arguments about the importance of there being a parliamentary procedure. There was not one before; now there will be one. It has been given a clean bill of health by the Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Deregulation, whose views on these matters are worth listening to.

I hope that that does not mean, by definition, that my views on these matters are not worth listening to.

To give the Secretary of State the flexibility to reshape areas without any further democratic involvement seems wholly undesirable. The point I was trying to make is that once the boundaries are set it will be a major job to change any of them: the boards are set up, the members are appointed, the boards are working and the police forces and the demarcation of the boundaries of the service are at one. So it will not be a trivial matter to change any boundaries. As I said, it will also be controversial. This should not be done by means of negative resolution but by a procedure which includes extensive consultation—perhaps more than was included in the 1993 Act—and that consultation should result in the democratic process of the Houses of Parliament having the opportunity to comment on the Secretary of State's proposals. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendment No. 9 not moved.]

I should indicate that, if Amendment No. 10 is agreed to, I cannot call Amendments Nos. 10A to 16.

moved Amendment No. 10:

Page 46, line 4, leave out paragraphs 1 and 2.

Amendments Nos. 10B, 10C and 18A in this group stand in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Dholakia. We do not intend to speak further to or move Amendment No. 18A. However, perhaps I may speak briefly to Amendment No. 10B and, in speaking to Amendment No. 10C, support the remarks of the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch.

Amendment No. 10B would give the board the power in effect to co-opt one person to be a member of the board. The power of co-option is one that is almost universally retained by governing bodies of all kinds. I should perhaps declare my experience for the past 20 years in drafting constitutions for all manner of principally voluntary and non-profit-making organisations but also commercial organisations. It is extremely useful for the boards to have a power of co-option. It would enable them to add to their number someone of particular expertise, contact or experience who might help in a particular project or predicament. I leave my advocacy of Amendment No. 10B at that. It is simple and would not in any way endanger the basic scheme.

Amendment No. 10C deals with the basic arrangements from Parliament, through the Home Secretary, to the national director, and down to the local boards. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, and like other speakers at Second Reading, I believe that the balance is counter-productive and will not serve the Government's purposes or those of Members on this side of the Committee who to a large degree share the Government's purposes. This is an argument about ways and means.

Striking the balance between maximum devolution of power, authority and autonomy on the one hand, which tend to get the best out of people, and retaining an essential degree of control at the centre, which is necessary in terms of the consistency and thrust of national policy, calls upon the maximum wisdom of those in this Chamber and of the Government who are framing the provisions.

The temptation in this age seems always to be: when in doubt, retain control; when in doubt, grab more control. The argument seems to go: if one has met a degree of difference, as most of us have, in the way in which probation services have been delivered by committees around the country, we must stop all the inconsistency, the variable quality and ensure consistency in future, and that that can be delivered only by a national system, nationally controlled.

We on these Benches in particular are doubtful about some of the assumptions made in terms of the attempt to ensure future quality by pulling powers into the centre. There are myriad examples where that has led to the reverse. There is nothing more consistent than the graveyard, but it is not exactly a place of dynamic creativity.

So we are strongly inclined to think that too much power has been garnered by the Secretary of State under these provisions. The noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, read out some of them to the Committee. I should like to concentrate on one of those powers. It is contained in paragraph 12, which states simply:

"Functions and other powers of local boards must be performed in accordance with any directions given to them by the Secretary of State".

In various letters which the Minister kindly wrote to Members of this place after Second Reading, he made it plain that this is indeed intended to be an omnibus power and will be utilised to resolve—note the neutral word—local disputes that might arise within a board, and in particular between a board and the chief officer.

Perhaps I may quote from one of the letters written by the Minister on this point to my noble friend Lord Dholakia on 11th July. He said:

"In common with the Chair and all the other board members, he [the chief officer] will be required, under Schedule 1 paragraph 12, to comply with any directions made by the Secretary of State. So it is clear that if any conflict does arise within the board, it can be resolved by the Secretary of State who will be able to direct all parties to follow the same course".

Oh, will he? How on earth will that work in practice? How on earth can the Secretary of State expect to be sensitive to all the ongoing, inevitable disagreements within the myriad boards over which he has this draconian power? The power is in itself dangerously wide. But the notion is that it will be used to resolve conflicts which, it is rightly said, are inevitable under the structure in the Bill as drafted, given that the chief executive officer is employed by, and is answerable to, not the board but the distant Secretary of State.

I know of no one on the world of governance, whether corporate, voluntary or any other, who believes that that is a workable arrangement. If it is not—and I have looked in vain for any precedent that might provide reassurance on the point—then it is our job as a revising Chamber to persuade the Government in effect to improve their own measure for their own ends.

Perhaps I may add a further important point. It is a commonplace that if power and authority are given to a group of individuals to get on with a particular task, first, they will usually rise to the challenge, and, secondly—this is my point—there is then some prospect of attracting to that body men and women of a higher calibre. My concern is that the boards will be so much under the thumb of the Secretary of State, and will be so curtailed in what they do—that is, they will have so little real power and no autonomy—that we shall not get the ablest men and women to sit on them. Frankly, if we do not, the job will be ill done. For that reason also, I strongly urge both the Minister and the Government to reconsider the issue. I realise how difficult that may be and I am aware of their aims and objectives. But I do not want to be saying, "I told you so", in five years' time. I am sure that we would all prefer this issue to be reviewed, with the Minister returning to us at the next stage with a new concordat.

I thank both contributors to the debate for their comments. In some ways, I believe that there is a degree of consensus here. The noble Baroness agrees that there needs to be an effective national probation service. I believe that she also agrees with the general drift of what the Government are trying to do. The noble Lord, Lord Phillips, also seems to agree with the general drift of what we seek to achieve; indeed, he suggested that in his earlier remarks. In a sense, there is an irony here. All of us are informed by a strong "localist" background in our politics. The noble Baroness was an indefatigable and effective local leader and I like to think that I was not too bad in that respect. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, is very keen on the local aspect and on having services close to the locality. Therefore, I understand the strength of both strains of the argument.

However, in order to succeed and create a service that performs in the best possible way, we take the view that we need to improve performance. Good performance is already there, but we want to improve upon it and raise standards. That is the reason why we have struck out on a course to create an effective national probation service. We believe that such a service should have a structure that provides strong leadership, both centrally and locally. We want a service within an overall national strategy based on what works—and there seems to be a consensus on that aim. We also want boards that are more diverse and more representative. I know that noble Lords on the Liberal Democrat Benches support that aim and objective. We also want a service that has better and clearer lines of accountability. We want to have the means of removing inefficient or ineffective boards. That has not been the case in the past and has sometimes proved to be to the detriment of the service. We also want to have more efficient use of the estate through central management.

Although this group of amendments is well intentioned, I believe that it is misconceived. Moreover, if such provisions were to be inserted, they would seriously undermine the Government's intentions to create a more effective and accountable service, which is clearly focused on protecting the public and reducing reoffending—again, aims with which we all agree. In our view, these amendments seek to retain aspects of the current arrangements, which I believe we all agree have proved in the past to be lacking in some respects and in need of change. Such provisions would simply impede the better management of the service.

At present, there is no identifiable individual who is responsible for delivering service—its wide commitments—or the means for ensuring a consistently high standard of performance. That has led to unacceptable variation in the standard of performance achieved in different areas which cannot be explained other than in terms of the quality of local management and leadership. If performance is to be raised, there needs to be a coherent national organisation with strong central leadership, together with the means to deal with poor performance.

There are many examples of very good committees within the service. Sadly, however, that is not the universal picture. I believe that that was ably demonstrated by the excellent work that ACOP carried out in auditing performance in relation to enforcement. We need a more consistent approach. If the Secretary of State is to be accountable for the delivery of an efficient service, which is vital if crime is to be reduced, he must have the means to deliver the required outcomes.

Some noble Lords have argued that the structure we propose would lead to conflict between chief officers and boards and that it would, therefore, be unworkable. I argue that the converse is true and that it will tackle existing problems. The chief officer will be a member of the board and will undertake the day-to-day management on behalf of the board. In our scheme, all of the board will be appointed by the Secretary of State and will be accountable to him. They will be required to work within the strategic framework determined by the Secretary of State. However, that will not remove the very important local dimension—we want that benefit—that we are keen to retain. Under our model the boards will be more diverse and representative of their local areas. They will have to deliver a service in a way that meets local needs. Their work—

I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. In the event of a disagreement between the clear majority of a board and the chief officer, can the noble Lord tell the Committee whether it is really his proposition that the Home Secretary of the day will send a direction down to, say, Suffolk stating that the board must follow the views of the chief officer on the issue? If that is the case—it seems to me to be so from his letter—what effect will that have upon the morale, conduct and willingness to continue in service of the rest of the board?

I take the point made in what I believe the noble Lord will accept is an extreme example. I am sure that persuasion, discussion and negotiation will have taken place in such a case. I have no doubt that a resolution to any potential conflict would be best served by adopting those means. If the Secretary of State ultimately finds his will frustrated, clearly it will be a matter for him to take the steps identified by the noble Lord as a way to resolve the matter. There have been cases in the past where difficulties have been experienced. Because there was no clear line management and no sense of direction or purpose for such management, profound problems arose. That was not necessarily for the benefit of the service. We need to establish a system that is transparent to those who serve in it and more accountable both locally and nationally.

Perhaps I may concentrate a little on the detail of the amendments. Amendments Nos. 10, 10B, 10C and 11 would fundamentally change the proposed board structure and, in our view, make the boards less effective. As I said before, the key to improving performance—I believe we all accept this—is good and effective leadership. It is right that members of the board, including the chief officer, should be appointed by the Secretary of State, though for judges it would be the Lord Chancellor. There is no need for co-opted members, as suggested by Amendment No. 18A.

Sub-committees will deal with specific issues. They will be able to call on outside expertise if necessary. However, the boards will not need to appoint additional members. It is our intention to involve local board chairs in chief officer appointments, where chief officers will change. The selection process that is now well under way is based on the advice of the office of the Commissioner for Public Appointments. So there will be transparency in the process, which will be carefully invigilated.

Amendments Nos. 18 and 20 would, we believe, undermine the key position of the chief officer in the new structure and hamper efficient day-to-day management. Amendment No. 70 is a consequential amendment that would have the effect of treating chief officers in the same manner as other employees in respect of transfer to new services. We believe that any national organisation should have the ability to appoint its senior executives centrally. The Government are satisfied that it is absolutely right for chief probation officers to be appointed by the Secretary of State.

I realise that my response will not satisfy the proposers of the amendments in this group. However, I hope that I have directly addressed the issues raised in the debate. Our intention is to create a well-focused, well-structured, clearly-led and well-managed organisation. Yes, that will mean a degree of centralisation of direction and determination. It will also mean an important local input. We value the local, but in trying to reorient this service and ensure that it is better focused on reducing offending rates, and so on—all of which are shared objectives—we believe that we now have a model that will prove to be effective.

I have not been more disappointed in a reply in a long time. That was a seriously defective response. The Minister does not appear to have understood any of the arguments that have been proposed on the importance of the body that we are discussing. It does not comprise a local authority but a body that will undertake the most sensitive and, from time to time, dangerous work. Line management is absolutely crucial, as is responsibility for affairs at a local level. Many in the service will be deeply dismayed at some of the Minister's comments on the ineffectiveness of local boards and of some chief officers simply because they are not all employed by the Secretary of State.

Does the Secretary of State really believe that he and/or the officials in his department have the time to tackle the conflicts that arise at local level? That will not result in the effective local delivery of a national service. Serious tensions will arise on occasion. People will be confused as to where responsibility lies. Such matters will be settled only in court. We certainly do not want that.

The Minister used the phrase, "strong 'localist' background in our politics". I do not approach this matter from the point of view of having served in local politics. I certainly do not bring politics into it at all. There is a difference between us here. I believe that we should approach this subject from an apolitical point of view.

On a point of clarification, I tried to say—I thought that I had done so effectively—that I understood the importance of local input. I thought that I paid the noble Baroness a compliment in referring to her background. I thought that she too would understand the importance of local input. I certainly do not want to denigrate that in any shape or form.

It is wrong to conclude—as I believe the noble Baroness suggested—that we are critical of all aspects of local committees and local services. The Government simply want to ensure that we build on important local strengths but within an effective national framework.

We are not arguing about: the national framework. The service must be delivered locally. The profiles of areas differ. Crime varies greatly between rural areas, towns, cities, urban and suburban areas. Those areas all pose different problems, tensions and challenges for local people. I support the effective local delivery of the service. As I say, no one is arguing about the framework. However, the Government appear to be imposing central operation on the service. I believe that will work against effective local delivery and will place chief officers in an invidious position vis-à-vis local boards, local police authorities and the other agencies with which they work.

The Minister has just said that he did not criticise the service. I hope that he will read his response in Hansard. The rationale for the proposed changes is that the boards and the chief officers have not worked well. As I say, I hope that the Minister will read his response. It is alleged that there has been no consistency of policy and that the Secretary of State needs to have central—

If I may intervene—

I hope that I may finish my point. It is alleged that the Secretary of State needs to adopt central control of the service for a consistent service to be delivered. There are some problems here. The Minister said that we want strong leadership, referring to the Secretary of State. I suggest that we want good leadership from chief probation officers. The Minister said that we need an overall national strategy. I do not argue with that. That constitutes a development of the national standards that we have had. The Minister said that we want consistency in the application of those standards. Again, I do not argue with that. A central inspectorate was mentioned to oversee that matter. That is the tool that the Secretary of State will use to assess the operation of the service.

However, the Minister then said that the Government want a more diverse service. Of course we want a more diverse service as it needs to reflect the challenges that arise in each area. The Minister said that we want better accountability. Earlier I mentioned the powers that are not affected by the amendments. The Secretary of State will still retain the right of approval over the appointment of chief officers. He will still be able to appoint and remove boards. He will have control of 100 per cent of funding and allocation of funding. He will set overall objectives for the service. He will receive reports from the inspectorate and will be given regular statistical and financial information, audit reports and annual reports from each board. He will also have powers of direction and default. For goodness sake, those are sufficient powers!

Our argument may seem trivial. The Minister may believe that somehow or other we misunderstand the matter. It is patronising to imply that as we have all been involved in local politics we should not worry our pretty little heads about the matter and that eventually we shall understand what is proposed. The letter that has been mentioned is patronising in suggesting that the boards have not "thought themselves into" the new service and that chief officers have not appreciated the fact that the service will be different. That maligns chief officers. I believe that they well know what lies ahead and that they are excited about it. They want to make it work. The Minister talked of ineffective local boards and said that we need central management. I am sorry that he should have said that.

Before I decide what to do with the amendment, I hope that the Minister will say something about non-departmental public body status. Are these boards non-departmental public bodies? If that is the case, do they enjoy full NDPB status? What exactly are they? It is important that I receive a reply to that question before I decide what to do with the amendment.

I have two questions for the Minister. First, is he aware of any other comparable governance structure to the one proposed here that would give any assurance at all that this will not be a débâcle? Secondly, under what circumstances and to what extent will the boards be able to order chief officers to do anything? If, for example, a board comes to the conclusion that it wants to adopt this policy or that measure, and a chief officer says that the Home Secretary gave the impression that he wanted a certain policy, what happens?

I am not sure that I shall be able to give the precise answers that have been sought but I shall endeavour to do my best. I do not think that one can describe local boards as non-departmental public bodies. Usually they are established on the basis of an arm's-length relationship with the department. However, in this case I do not think that one can accurately argue that to be the case. We are, after all, creating a national probation service and we intend to manage it as such.

However, we are considering the status of the boards. We need to view this matter in a rather different light. This goes to the heart of the point that the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, made. It is not easy to suggest comparable structures as this is a unique service. It is a service we are trying to align with other parts of the criminal justice system. We seek to create a national service for all the reasons on which I believe we are agreed; namely, the need to create strong, effective, firm and good leadership with a consistent application of policy and with a clear sense of purpose. As I say, this is a unique service. There will be change. I believe that there are differences as regards the positions that we have adopted on this matter. However, there is also a degree of consensus. We believe that the management arrangements that we seek to put in place will be effective. Time will tell.

To take the point of the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, from time to time there may well be conflicts but we think that they will be few and far between. By establishing a clear sense of line management and management discipline, we believe that there will be fewer than in the past.

I am sorry to interrupt the Minister again. I am grateful to him for giving way. However, I must press the noble Lord. He talks about wonderful line management. What happens in the circumstances about which I speculated: the board says one thing and the Home Office says another. There is not a direction but simply a line of policy. Where is the line of management?

I thought that I had made it plain that one would expect the national service to ensure that there is effective line management and that it will come from the centre. We would not expect there to be the extremes of conflicts that the noble Lord envisages. The board will wish to direct the way in which the service operates. Ultimately the Secretary of State will be able to overrule the way in which the board operates. Regulations will delegate some issues directly to chief officers. That is made clear in paragraph 10 of Schedule 1.

I do not see the service working in the adversarial conflict-driven way that the noble Lord describes. We think that the management arrangements that will be spelt out will be clear and effective and that we shall be able to resolve any of the problems and tensions that the noble Lord envisages. I do not think that it will happen in the way the noble Lord envisages.

I recognise that it is an important debate. One will take note of what has been said. However, at this stage we cannot accept the amendment.

The situation is even more depressing. The Minister did not answer the point of the noble Lord, Lord Phillips. The Minister said that the boards can be overruled. He gave no example of where that occurs in any other form of governance. Chief constables are appointed by their local authorities but they are approved by the Home Secretary. Health trusts are appointed. I imagine that the short list is again approved by the Home Secretary of the day.

The noble Lord does not think that these conflicts will occur. At this stage of legislation, we ask the Minister, "If this were to occur, what would happen?" It is not such an outlandish thought. Let me develop the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Phillips. All the senior management team will be direct employees of the board; but the chief officer will not. Let us suppose that all the senior management team, the people who work to them, and the board, having recognised the needs of the people of their local area, come to a conclusion that they want to do something. The chief officer would like to do it too because he sees the merits of the argument. However, he has another line of management to the Home Secretary who says something different. What would happen? I should like the Minister to answer that precise point. Will he also tell me whether it is true that the Cabinet Office is concerned about whether these bodies are NDPBs?

I am not aware that the Cabinet Office is concerned about the position of the boards.

I understand the argument, but it is an extreme position. I am sure that the instances described by the noble Lord and the noble Baroness will arise very infrequently. I do not see that there should necessarily be this conflict-driven management system. We think that the management arrangements will be effective.

How does the noble Baroness envisage the current system managing the situations she describes? The current service does not deal with them as well as they could he managed. We believe that the management and line arrangements will be a more effective way of resolving some of the tensions that may have arisen in the past. I believe that we shall see marked improvements as a consequence. I accept that there is a difference of view but we shall reflect upon the points made today in an important debate.

Before the Minister sits down, perhaps I may ask one last question. Cart the noble Lord imagine a situation a few years ago when Michael Howard was the Home Secretary when he might have given a direction vis-à-vis the affairs of probation committees which was considered by the Labour Opposition at the time to be totally against the public interest, destructive and against the values that they now espouse in this Bill? Would the Minister wish all power to reside with the Home Secretary of the day to force through any measure he or she might like, however partisan or ineffectual, rather than having a set of local checks and balances which provide a source of power against central might?

Before the Minister answers that question, the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, posed a fundamental question on which the entire argument hangs. Are the boards non-departmental public bodies? The Minister has skirted around that argument. It has considerable bearing on a number of amendments I intend to move later. Will the noble Lord confirm, yes or no, whether the boards are NDPBs?

I thought that I had made clear earlier that we do not believe that they are NDPBs. The noble Lord's point is a debating point. If we thought, as we did from time to time, that the previous Secretary of State was wrong, we vigorously pursued the argument.

The Minister has been kind enough to say that he will reflect on the issue. I wish to press the noble Lord once more. I assume from his answers that these are not NDPBs. The noble Lord used the phrase that he did not believe that they were. At this stage of the Bill, I expect the Government to be beyond doubt and sure. Does the noble Lord believe that they are not NDPBs, or are they not NDPBs?

I believe that they are not NDPBs.

I cannot take the answer as other than "Don't know". The noble Lord is being equivocal rather than unequivocal.

The Minister said that he will reflect on this issue. I hope that he will. It is, in his own words, an important debate. I hope that he will be open-minded until we discuss the matter again at the next stage, as we certainly shall. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

moved Amendment No. 12:

Page 46, line 12, at end insert ("; and in particular, the Secretary of State shall ensure that at least one member of the board shall be from each of the following categories—

(a) a member of a county, borough or district council in the area of the board,

(b) a justice of the peace resident in the area of the local board,

(c) a member of the youth offending team").

The amendment would constrain in statute the membership of the boards, which the Bill leaves to be determined by regulations. We do not believe that it is appropriate to specify their composition in the Bill and would prefer to lay regulations before the House on that in due course. I can give a firm commitment that we are persuaded of the need to make membership of the boards open to the widest range of people. The aim is for boards to have an appropriate balance of skills and experience and to reflect the make-up of the local community. I made that point in an earlier debate and I want to reinforce it now.

We aim to have four magistrates and two elected local authority members on every board. We want as many people as possible to be encouraged to come forward. We do not want to narrow the field, as we believe that the amendment would do. We recognise and value the importance of the local authority link. There will be cross-overs in the interaction and interrelation of the services. It is very important that there should be a reasonable reflection of the local magistracy on the boards. We want a wide range of people to come forward and offer their services to ensure diversity of membership.

I understand the noble Baroness's point, but we think that leaving the issue to regulations will give us the flexibility to ensure that the boards are diverse and, importantly, establish a link with the local magistracy and local authorities.

I am grateful to the Minister for that answer. I know some of the arguments about not defining the composition of boards in the Bill, although it is important to debate the balance of the boards and how they should work.

The boards have been somewhat maligned in some of our debates so far. In their defence, we should say on the record that for a long time the boards have been unhappy about how they have had to work and about their composition. Most of them agree that they are too large and would like to be smaller and more operationally effective. The boards have waited very patiently. During the last two or three years of my tenure of office, there were regular applications through the usual channels for a legislative slot to make them more effective. We should recognise that they were at the forefront of pressing for that. The Minister may think that their current performance is not outstanding, but that is largely because of how they were set up some years ago. The boards have been looking forward to change but needed a legislative basis for it. They are now getting a legislative basis, but the changes will be rather different from what was imagined before. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

moved Amendment No. 14:

Page 46, line 12, at end insert—

("( ) The Secretary of State shall ensure that the members of the board appointed by him are appropriately qualified to carry out the functions conferred on them by this Act.").

I support Amendments Nos. 14, 15 and 17, spoken to by the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch. I shall speak to Amendment No. 16, which would restrict the number of magistrates on the board and widen the membership further than suggested by the noble Baroness.

The schedule regulates the composition of the newly established probation boards. Local probation services are currently managed predominantly by magistrates. Although we applaud those magistrates who volunteer to take on that onerous task, board members have been drawn from a limited circle. We need to widen it.

I accept that the Bill allows for the possibility of board members being drawn from a wider group, although one of the members is rightly to be appointed by the Lord Chancellor from among Crown Court judges. The chairman and other members are to be appointed by the Secretary of State. It is vital that the membership of the board represents a wide cross-section of the community. We suggest that more board members should come from local businesses, community groups, housing associations, drug agencies, the voluntary sector, local councillors and other organisations with a stake in crime prevention and rehabilitation.

I have listened carefully to the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, and the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia. There is probably not a great deal between us. We are talking mainly about the means to the end. We think that there should be a limit on the length of time that people can serve on the board, with a maximum appointment of perhaps two consecutive terms. Some changes may be needed to effect that.

However, we need flexibility. My comments will not find favour with the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, but we think that the issues are best dealt with in regulations. Amendments Nos. 14, 16 and 17 would specify issues relating to the individuals appointed to be members of local boards. We think that the matter is best dealt with through regulations, as Schedule 1 provides. We intend to place a limit on the number of magistrates and also to restrict tenure. Therefore, I believe that we are meeting the point that has been made. However, we feel that that is probably best done in regulations. It is currently undertaken in that way. It is legislation that we have inherited. Therefore, what we are doing is very much in accordance with how such matters have worked in the past.

Amendment No. 15 would require the Home Secretary to consult a wide range of interests before making appointments. Although, on the face of it, that would be desirable, we believe that in these circumstances it would probably be unnecessary. However, robust appointment procedures which involve an element of consultation will be in place. I believe that the appointment process will find and bring forward the best individuals. We do not believe that a requirement exists, as the amendment anticipates, for extensive consultation in the way that has been set out, although we accept that consultation is very important.

Therefore, we understand the spirit behind the amendments. We agree some of the points, particularly with regard to tenure and a limit on numbers of magistrates and perhaps of other classes and categories. However, as is usually the case in such matters, we believe that it is best carried out through regulations. On that basis, I hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw the amendment.

I listened carefully to the answer. I should be more reassured if I thought that the noble Lord had not found the arguments interesting and persuasive but was prepared to adopt them, albeit in regulations rather than on the face of the Bill. Do the Government have it in mind, for example, to make appointments for not less than five years? Do the Government have it in mind—they must have something in mind because presumably the regulations are being formed at this moment—to limit the tenure of office? Do they have it in mind to introduce a system to ensure that the qualifications of people appointed to the boards are appropriate for the task in hand? And do they have it in mind to consult on the matter?

If the noble Lord can say that the Government accept all those points and that they will appear in legislation, it will be more helpful than saying simply that they are very persuasive arguments but the Government will not accept the amendments.

Perhaps I can add further clarity. We feel that board members should be appointed for three years and for a maximum of two consecutive terms. However, a change to that may be required. For that reason, I believe that putting time limits, as set out in Amendment No. 17, on the face of the Bill would deprive us of the flexibility we may need. Of course, when people apply to become members of a board, we shall set out carefully and clearly a type of job specification, listing the qualities that we expect the candidates to have. After all, that is one of the processes and procedures which has developed usefully over the past few years and which is an important element of what we might describe as the Nolan principles behind public appointments.

I hope that the noble Lord will think again about the period of three years. I am a member of a museum of which the sponsoring department is the MoD. I am a trustee of that museum and my appointment is reviewed every three years. The Government's record, not only in the MoD but in the health department and in many other government departments, for making appointments on time and in a non-bureaucratic manner is not good.

The intention is to appoint to all those boards every three years. I do not know whether the process will be staggered, but one is in danger of having to make a whole block of appointments every three years. One will hardly be able to blink before the three years are up and one will be looking for another set of people or renewing periods of office. I believe that the nature of the work is complex and interesting. It seems to me that, if one asks people to give up their time in order to get to know the service well and to make a proper contribution when they are fresh to the work, five years is a better term than three years.

I did not mention Amendment No. 16. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia. However, I believe that the boards themselves were also concerned that they were not in a position to change the composition, requiring, as they would, legal authority to do so. Therefore, I do not believe that that amendment would be received with dismay. I believe that the boards would probably welcome some streamlining and the fact that there would not be a predominance of a particular group in the way that, on many boards, there is at present.

I welcome that observation. I believe that there is a degree of commonality on this issue between our Administration and the previous administration. I recollect that the previous government were keen to streamline boards and some streamlining was undertaken. I remember dealing with the consultation on that matter. I believe that streamlining will produce more effective and more focused boards, and it is helpful that there is now agreement on that. I suspect that we shall have rather smaller boards than we have had in the past. As I am sure the noble Baroness will recall from her time in the Home Office, boards tended to be 20 or 30 people strong. We believe that in the region of half that number would be more appropriate. I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her supportive comments.

I thank the noble Lord. A great deal of informal streamlining took place on some of the boards. However, they were concerned that they were possibly trading illegally and were concerned about obtaining legal authority for what they wanted to do. Therefore, to that extent, this proposal is welcome. The Minister has given his word that he will reflect on these matters and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

moved Amendment No. 19:

Page 47, line 16, leave out from beginning to ("the") in line 17 and insert—

("7. Each board shall appoint a secretary and a treasurer.

7A. Regulations may provide—

(a) for").

Amendment No. 19A, in my name, achieves the same purpose with, dare I say it, neater stitching than Amendment No. 19. It is significant and I hope that the Government will accept it.

I believe that the issue here is fairly simple. It is whether the appointment of a secretary and treasurer to local boards should be required on the face of the Bill or whether it should be left to regulations. We take the simple view that it is probably best left to regulations. It is a minor amendment but we do not believe that it necessarily improves the quality of the Bill.

As currently drafted, there is a provision for regulations to require local boards to appoint a secretary and a treasurer. This amendment would make that an absolute requirement and perhaps restrict unduly the scope of the regulations to controlling aspects of the appointments and the appointees' duties.

Management and operation of the new probation service must be strong and effective at local level. I believe that we are agreed on that point. However, that is not necessarily achieved by simply replicating in statute the present requirements for a secretary and a treasurer. Those appointments may be entirely appropriate now but they may not be so in the future. We take the view that dealing with such matters in regulations rather than on the face of the Bill provides a sensible degree of flexibility for the future. For that reason, I suggest to the noble Baroness and the noble Lord that they should not press their amendments this evening.

I am not going to fight the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, about which is the better amendment. I have not studied his amendment. Indeed, I saw it only for the first time this morning. If it achieves the same end, I should be more than happy to accept his amendment.

I was dismayed by that reply. My suspicions were aroused by it. Is the noble Lord saying that it is bad to put this provision on the face of the Bill because it gives an absolute responsibility to the boards for appointing a secretary and a treasurer? Is the future flexibility needed so that the Home Secretary can do that? I cannot understand what the noble Lord means when he refers to being tied down and to the power being an absolute one for the boards to appoint their own secretary and treasurer. The only flexibility of which I can think, which may be in the mindof the Minister, is for the Home Secretary to do that as well.

If I understood the Minister right, he is telling us that a board may at some future time, operate without a secretary or a treasurer. Was that his intention? If he is saying the board can operate without a treasurer, then I wonder whether Amendment No. 58 in the name of my noble friend Lord Dholakia about the need for adequate resources is even more urgent than I had supposed.

I should not want the noble Baroness to go away with the thought in her mind that somehow we are suggesting other than that these matters should be simply left to regulations. We are trying to achieve flexibility and not central diktat. That seemed to be the drift of the noble Baroness's concluding comments. That is not what we are about at all.

It may well be that other titles and other deployments of members of the board in terms of the way in which they work are more appropriate in the future. We do not wish to be tied down precisely in legislation. Dealing with this matter in regulations means that we are providing that flexibility.

I am quite happy to take away this point and have another look at it, if that helps the Committee this evening. However, it is the flexibility question about which we are most concerned. Perhaps the matter is best left there at this stage of our discussions.

This is a matter to which we shall have to return. It is worrying. The noble Earl has aroused another suspicion. Either the Secretary of State may wish to place secretaries and treasurers onto the boards, or worse, they should exist without them.

The work which the boards will do is extremely complex and legalistic. We live in a more litigious world now. The work of the boards will be considerable. Managing complex budgets, contracting out services and buying and selling their services will mean that they will need first-class legal, technical and accountancy advice. That can be obtained through a good secretary and treasurer. It seems to me that absolutely no harm is done by putting that responsibility on the board. In fact, I go further and say that there should be a responsibility on the board to have a secretary and treasurer.

I do not believe that there should be flexibility. The Minister has not told the Committee why that flexibility is needed in the future unless, as I say, it is not to make the appointments at all or that somebody else should make those appointments. We shall certainly return to this matter, but for the moment I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

moved Amendment No. 21:

Page 47, line 40, leave out sub-paragraph (1) and insert—

("(1) The Secretary of State shall pay to a probation hoard, in a timely manner, such amounts as shall be necessary for each board to discharge its responsibilities.").

Amendment No. 21A stands in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Dholakia. It covers almost the same ground as the amendment just moved by my noble friend Lady Blatch. I hope that in his response the Minister will not plead the need for flexibility. I see that flexibility is a quality which is on the side of government but certainly not on the side of these boards, which do not want flexibility in the matter of financing any more than they want it in the matter of having a treasurer and a secretary.

I am sure they want certainty.

Indeed.

We do not have any quarrel with the fact that the Government should pay appropriate amounts to local boards on appropriate days. As I am sure we all agree, that is a function of good government. But the same applies to all areas of expenditure which require government to make grants to organisations. It is understood and, of course, it is something that should happen. In our view, there is absolutely no need to clutter the bell with what are perhaps unnecessary embellishments by way of the amendments. I understand the spirit behind them but they are an embellishment. This is not an amendment which we feel we can accept, although, of course, I shall go away and persuade my colleagues in the Home Office that they had better make sure that the grants are made on time.

What happens if they are not?

This is one undertaking which I dread to give. However, I am sure that appropriate borrowing powers will be in place and that the Secretary of State will approve those powers. I am sure that boards will not be left without the necessary cash to carry out their functions and responsibilities.

The number of Ministers who have given that reply must by now run well into four figures. Some of them have been optimists.

I had not intended to intervene in this matter because it is not my subject at all. However, from personal experience I assure the Committee that Ministers do not pay their bills on time. My wife has experienced this in relation to countryside matters. Schemes have been approved by the European Parliament but the money has not been forthcoming. It has been necessary to put contractors on stand-by and schemes have been delayed. The Government do not pay their bills. They withhold money. I merely advise the Committee that we should not expect such matters to run smoothly.

I cannot forfend but to dwell for a moment on that wonderful expression "cluttered with embellishments". I wonder whether the Minister views as a cluttering embellishment his own entitlement to remuneration. However, I let that pass.

I think that my family would see it as essential.

But I am sure that his bank manager has given the noble Lord borrowing powers. Again, we have said enough to demonstrate that, whatever happens, delayed or untimely payments must not put the service at risk. Whatever the arrangements are, it is absolutely essential that some facility is made available to the boards to make sure that they can continue their important work. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

moved Amendment No. 22:

Page 48, line 12, after ("holding") insert ("or managing land and other").

I speak with some difficulty on Amendments No. 22 and 23. We have already talked about who employs probation officers and chief probation officers and now we are talking about who owns and manages probation service premises.

Earlier the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, and I asked the Minister whether the boards that will be set up will be non-departmental public bodies and his answer was that he did not believe that they would be. We asked for a categorical assurance on this matter, and we have had no such assurance whether they are or not. We simply have the belief of the Minister.

This causes confusion because the issue of non-departmental public bodies was discussed two years ago in the prison/probation review. At that time it was said:

"While the sponsoring department could set out a policy framework within which the NDPB will be required to work and control its resourcing, it would not normally be empowered to tell the body how to spend its money or how to meet its statutory obligations. Executive NDPBs therefore preserve considerable independence from central government, and would, in all practical ways, operate much like existing probation committees".

So if you are an NDPB that is the provision for you. However, since the review, nothing appears to have been done about NDPB status. The reason is that in July 2000 the Cabinet Office wrote to the Minister saying that the 42 boards created by the Bill would be NDPBs. Am I right? I believe that the Home Office tried to obtain an exemption, but neither the Treasury nor the Cabinet Office would agree. In other words, to all intents and purposes they are NDPBs unless the Treasury or the Cabinet Office agrees with the Minister.

I can go further. Non-departmental public bodies have accounting arrangements particular to themselves and if the Minister cannot get Cabinet Office agreement to an exemption there need to be specific amendments to the Bill. Everything that we have discussed would be absolute nonsense. If the Minister is not right, is there time for a specific amendment? The National Audit Office and the Audit Commission are concerned about the delay and confusion in the Home Office. The Audit Commission says that there is no good precedent for an NDPB not appointing its own chief executive and not owning its own property.

The confusion has left many financial questions unanswered including those of property, employment and so on. Have monies been correctly spent? Can the probation committee expect its end of year accounts to be closed by the district auditors with so much uncertainty? The Probation Service needs to plan next year's budget now, but it does not know whether it will be accountable to the new directorate or to the Public Accounts Committee. Is the chief officer or the chair responsible for the budget?

NDPBs clearly imply arm's-length governance. That goes against the thrust of the Bill. If the boards are to be NDPBs they will have a strengthened status but what will be the status of the directorate? If boards are not financially accountable to the directorate, what basis is there for the directorate to have any national authority? I believe that the Minister owes the Committee an explanation as to whether they are NDPBs.

I speak from the other end of the NDPB telescope, so to speak. How is one to envisage the system working if control over all property and contractual matters rests in London? How can the Government conceivably, efficiently or knowingly authorise a board in Northumberland or Cornwall on the issue of premises? It is a bureaucratic nonsense. Governments are becoming like clearing banks where, in order to have some idea of one's balance, one has to go via Aberdeen and Belfast. The proposition does not stack up and I can only endorse what has already been said; that is, whether or not they are NDPBs, the boards must have power over their own property. Frankly, to deny that to them is a striking demonstration of the Government's lack of confidence in their abilities.

Perhaps I can raise a small drafting point. Schedule 1, page 48, refers in line 12 to "property" and, further on in line 18, to "land". Is it intended to draw a sharp distinction between those two categories of asset?

When I was being instructed as a young chartered surveyor, I was told firmly that "land" included any structures that may be placed upon it. I am not clear about this wording. Perhaps the Minister can throw some light on it.

Perhaps I may deal with the last point first. My understanding is much the same as that of the noble Lord, Lord Hylton. I am not sure that there is a sharp distinction. However, I shall ruminate on his point and provide him with a response at a later date.

As I understand it, Amendment No. 22 would allow boards to manage land. But Amendments Nos. 23 and 24 would prevent boards from managing land unless they had the approval of the Secretary of State. That drafting slightly puzzled me. Amendment No. 72 would give ownership of the probation estate to local boards instead of the Secretary of State, and Amendment No. 74 would allow the Minister to introduce a scheme giving the probation boards any rights or interests in property which he considered appropriate.

I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. If the technical details of the amendments do not achieve what I intended and what noble Lords on the Liberal Democrat Benches mentioned also, the Minister must forgive me. We did a lot of the drafting ourselves and it may not be correct. But I hope he will not use that as an excuse for not addressing the specific point we made that it is important for the service to manage its property at a local level and that ownership also makes more sense. We can always correct the amendments or, if the arguments are acceptable to the Minister, no doubt the department will do it for us.

I am grateful to the noble Baroness for that point of explanation. No doubt it will be helpful to us. Just to clarify one point, I want to say that the purpose of my observation was simply to obtain a better understanding of what the noble Baroness is after.

Amendment No. 75 appears to provide that stamp duty shall not be chargeable to probation boards for any transfer or grant of property. I believe that was the amendment's intention.

Essentially, there is a difference of view here. Our view is that we want to see the effective and efficient management of the Probation Service estate. Amendments moved by the noble Baroness and supported by other noble Lords would seek to relocate the management or ownership back to the local boards. We believe that it is right for the land and property of the Probation Service in England and Wales to be managed centrally. In that way, in our view, there will be economies of scale in the provision of the services necessary to manage land and property.

We take the view that central management will also enable a more strategic national approach to be taken to acquisitions and disposals.

The noble Baroness used the term "draconian" in her description of the moves and measures we are taking in this part of the legislation. However, she acknowledged that some of the culture change and change of view in the way the estate should be managed was necessary. The noble Baroness also acknowledged that important discussions are taking place between the officers in the management of the service and Home Office officials.

We all have the simple objective of trying to obtain the best from the estate that we manage. But at the end of the day there is a difference of view in relation to the effective and efficient management of the service. We do not believe that it is appropriate to go along with the course recommended by Members opposite. We take the view that a sprawling estate can better be directed centrally. Noble Lords opposite clearly take a different view.

I suggest that the noble Baroness withdraws her amendment. We do not see merit in it. We see the central ownership and management of the property as being entirely consistent with the other parts of the package for the creation of a national Probation Service and we want to see that consistency carried through in that relationship.

Perhaps I can intervene before the Minister sits down. I put a specific question in relation to the non-departmental public bodies. A great deal hinges on the discussions that took place earlier. Can the Minister give a categorical assurance at this stage as to whether or not the boards are NDPBs, rather than whether he thinks or believes they are?

We had this discussion earlier. I felt I went as far as I could in setting out how we viewed the situation. I am happy to take away the point the noble Lord made in his contribution to this debate. No doubt it is an issue to which we shall return.

Perhaps I can come in as a referee on this. I listened to the questions put forward and did not intend to intervene. However, the Minister has been asked clearly several times whether or not the new bodies will be NDPBs. Each time he dodged the argument and said he "believes", he "thinks", he "feels", he "may" or he "should". But surely it is a statement of fact as to whether they are or are not. I can see that a lot of arguments hinge on this point and the question has been dodged right the way down the line. It is not a question of taking this point away; either they are or are not NDPBs. As somebody sitting in the middle listening to the argument, I believe it merits a straight yes or no answer.

The latest advice that I have been given is that, strictly speaking, they are not NDPBs.

They are not NDPBs. It is not that the Minister believes they are not; we now have the answer that they are not.

The Minister was concerned about my cynicism when I spoke of draconian arrangements. First, I find it absurd that the Home Office thinks it can run and manage the property of all these boards throughout the country. It is such an absurd idea that I am almost lost for words to describe the nonsense in the suggestion. But my cynicism comes from the words used by the Minister himself. He said that in the past the property has been owned and occupied by the service in a way which leaves a lot of scope for efficiency savings and rationalisation; some of those savings can only be realised if the estate is owned centrally.

What plans does the Home Office have? What is it about to do? If the service is allowed to manage its property locally, and if there is a remit to it from the Home Office to say that it should be managed efficiently and effectively, then the inspectorate should be used to ensure that it is delivering that remit. If it is felt that the boards are wasting money on premises or are being over-extravagant—I find it almost impossible to understand how one would know because I remember in the days when I was responsible for the service there were constant appeals from the various probation offices for approval to spend money on new premises or to refurbish premises and money was always a serious constraint—then the inspectorate should investigate. So the idea that there are vast estates of property throughout the country that are not being properly managed is absurd.

Serious issues arise in this regard. A point was raised by either the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, or the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, in relation to minor contracts with electricians, water boards and all sorts of people locally. Are the Government seriously saying that they will send in a civil servant to help them? That is mind-blowing in its stupidity. This is an issue to which we shall certainly have to return. But it is good to know that we now have an unequivocal answer that those bodies will not be NDPBs. I expect the Cabinet Office will be relieved that at last it has a definitive answer, which I understand it has been trying to obtain for some weeks.

I am pleased that the Minister said that the bodies will not be NDPBs. However, as in July the Cabinet Office said that they would be, can he say whether he has had a definitive reply from either that office or the Treasury? If so, can we know when the change of heart took place at Cabinet and Treasury level?

I agree with what was said by the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, and by my noble friend about the property issue. The idea that civil servants will make decisions on these issues is an extraordinarily ill-judged approach. My noble friend Lord Roper reminded me of the words of an old friend of mine, the late Douglas Jay. When he was a junior Minister in the Attlee government he said that the gentlemen in Whitehall really do know best. Douglas Jay suffered a great deal from that statement and the noble Lord is getting close to it.

Solemnly suggesting that government officials will take decisions on all these issues is centralisation run riot. The noble Baroness was right to say that we shall return to it at the Report stage and I have no doubt that we shall vote on it.

We have had an illuminating debate and I hope that I have been helpful in providing further clarification. It needs to he placed on record that there can be little dispute that improvements can always be made to the management of any part of the government estate. We are trying to secure the best benefits from a nationally organised Probation Service and achieve greater economies of scale, greater efficiencies and ensure that the estate is managed well and effectively on behalf of the local service. That is the way we see the system working. Whether or not the Probation Service is a non-departmental public body does not affect our view of the importance of central management in the management of the estate.

We simply want to achieve the best use of the service and I have no doubt that the noble Baroness will be the first to confirm the importance of that. Furthermore, when governments have sought to bring together localised services in a national format it is important that they seek to improve the quality of management of the national estate. There is nothing to stop boards carrying out minor issues relating to the management of premises and the Bill simply prevents local boards from owning property. Management will be reflected on locally and some of the issues which the noble Baroness raised—for instance, the hiring of electricians, plumbers and so forth—will undoubtedly be closely supervised by the local board.

The amendments would do nothing to advance that case and we believe that things are best managed centrally in the creation of a new national Probation Service.

We shall return to the matter. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

moved Amendment No. 25:

Page 48, line 36, at end insert—

("( ) The local board shall publish the plan (or any modified plan) prepared under this paragraph in at least two newspapers circulating widely in its area, and otherwise as it thinks fit or as the Secretary of State shall direct, and shall make it available for public inspection during ordinary office hours, either at the board's offices or at some convenient place appointed by the board.").

I am not sure whether I would have argued the same case had I been on the Benches opposite. Amendment No. 25 would require each board to publish its annual plan in a very specific way and Amendment No. 34 would require very specific publication of the requirements of board plans. We believe that the amendments can be achieved in a more flexible way—and I use that word in the context of these amendments—by using the Secretary of State's powers of direction under the Bill in Schedule I paragraph 14.

While we are all in favour of transparency and accountability, which are two important terms in regard to the Bill, Amendment No. 25 is far too prescriptive and proposes an unnecessarily complex and expensive procedure. We oppose the restrictions on the arrangements which boards might make to deliver services and regard it as unnecessary to specify that the organisations and individuals concerned should be appropriate. We are also opposed to the onerous arrangements proposed for publicising how services are to be delivered. Our new boards and other provisions in the Bill provide for transparency and accountability in the operation of the service.

I can understand the Minister's objection to the word "shall" in Amendment No. 25. Would he look more favourably on the proposal if the amendment instead used the word "may"? That would give local boards the option of publicising what they wanted to do, which would be in the public interest.

I believe that the local board is best placed to determine that and that it is unnecessary to specify it in the amendments. It may well be that local boards want to publicise plans in the way suggested but I do not believe that constraining them in a straitjacket, as suggested in the amendments, is the best way forward. That is best done locally. If boards of their own volition wanted to publicise in the way suggested, that would be fine.

There is an interesting irony because the noble Lord has spent a good deal of today arguing about central control and direction. However, as regards this issue it is for boards to decide what they want to do. If a board does not want to tell the world what it is doing so be it; if a board does want to, so be it.

I believe that there should be a requirement on the boards to be open about their affairs; that it would fit naturally under national standards and is important in a centrally controlled service. I shall not go to the barricades about the specific wording appearing on the face of the Bill, but it would be helpful to know whether in regulations or circulars to the service there will be a requirement for boards to be open about their arrangements and plans and their annual reports.

I am prepared to give an undertaking to consider the implication behind the amendments. Whether they are acceptable as drafted is another question. However, like the noble Baroness, I believe that it is wise for such bodies effectively to communicate their intentions as regards organisation, management and effectiveness of the service. Therefore, I am prepared to take that point away and I thought that the intervention of the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, was most helpful in that respect.

I am grateful to the Minister and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

moved Amendment No. 26:

Page 49, line 27, leave out ("prescribed persons") and insert ("any person").

I strongly identify with the arguments advanced in favour of the amendment.