asked Her Majesty's Government:

My Lords, the Government are committed to supporting all children through tax and benefit policies. Households with children will be on average £850 a year better off because of measures introduced in this Parliament.

Our ambition is to halve child poverty by the end of the decade on the way to abolishing it within 20 years. As a result of this Government's policies, a single earner family with two children, earning £12,500, will be £2,600 a year better off.

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for that Answer. Does he agree that there are in this country today 1.7 million lone parent families headed by mothers and 200,000 lone parent families headed by fathers? Does he further agree that last year the Exchequer spent £9.9 billion to support lone parent families? Has not the time come for the Exchequer 10 spend rather more money on encouraging young men to take seriously their responsibilities towards their children and their children's mothers?

My Lords, I am not sure whether that is a question about taxation policy or about moral exhortation. As a point of fact on taxation policy, because of individual taxation a single-earner couple pays more than a two-earner couple. Therefore, there is some incentive for couples to have two earners. I do not think that our taxation policy can be said to be driving anyone into single parenthood. Surely the opposite is the case.

My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that a crèche is not the answer for all children, particularly when they have to be taken to and from school? Is it not time that he put to his right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer the suggestion that we have been pushing for many years of a tax allowance for parents who have to employ someone for child help and care?

My Lords, I am slightly puzzled by that question. Under the working families tax credit—now claimed by more than 1 million families—100,000 families are claiming childcare benefit. That is more than double the number of those who were claiming the family credit disregard in the past. Taking the matter as a wider issue than the crèches to which the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner, refers, I should have thought that the Government are doing a good deal.

My Lords, does the Minister agree with my right honourable friend Charles Kennedy that family life and the way we raise our children are private matters? Does he also agree that while it is the proper object of government policy to help parents do what they choose, whether it is as full-time carers or at work, it is not a proper object of government policy to announce—as the right honourable gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer did on Radio Scotland yesterday—that the Government intend as art act of policy to change the proportion of those choices? That is beyond the Government's competence and, in the literal sense of the word, ultra vires. If he does not agree with my right honourable friend, perhaps he will say why he does not.

My Lords, the noble Earl, Lord Russell, will have noted my reluctance to follow the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, into the sphere of moral exhortation. I agree that it is for people to decide how they live their lives. On the other hand, it is a proper object of government policy to see that children are taken out of poverty. The actions which I have described, the taxation policies, the encouragement of parents of children to work and benefit substantially from that, are proper objects of government policy.

My Lords, does the noble Lord accept that the Answer which he gave to the Question of the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, referred only to supporting children and not to parents who make a long-term commitment? Does he not also agree that this is not a question of moral exhortation when in the Government's White Paper on the family the point was made that families with both a mother and a father bringing up children provide the best circumstances for children to grow up in?

My Lords, I think that possibly both the noble Baroness, Lady Young, and I are guilty of over-simplifying the matter. When I talk about supporting children, she talks about supporting parents. Clearly, if we support families with children, we are supporting both the families and the children.

My Lords—

My Lords—

My Lords, I think the feeling of the House is that we should hear from the noble Baroness, Lady Strange.

My Lords, I should first declare an interest. My husband and I have been happily married for a considerable number of years. We have brought up six children. Four of those children are already married and have children of their own. They are dedicating their lives to bringing up those children. I was talking to a lady on the bus this morning about children and education. She said, "If you do not have love in your heart, then you cannot achieve anything".

My Lords, this gives me the opportunity to congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Strange, on her happy family life and on her choice of the people she talks to on buses!

My Lords, does the Minister agree that the declaration of the Convention on the Rights of the Child, which has been incorporated into our law, is the right and proper instrument within which taxation or other policies should be framed? Does he also agree that, when the European Charter of Fundamental Human Rights starts to impact on British legislation, the convention should take priority?

My Lords, it is not the position of Her Majesty's Government that the Charter of Fundamental Human Rights will impact on British legislation.

My Lords, the Minister said a few moments ago that the Government believe in supporting children with their tax and benefits policies. But is the noble Lord aware that in the case of a single mother the present tangled web of tapers and disregards in the tax and benefits system means that her earnings will actually fall if she works for 27 hours a week as opposed to 26 hours a week? Do the Government think that that is supporting children through their tax policies?

My Lords, there are still anomalies in our taxation policies as regards children. We acknowledge that, which is why we have undertaken a fundamental review with results that will not become fully implemented until 2003. Nevertheless, in the shorter term the children's tax credit, which is to be introduced in April 2001, will be much better targeted than the old married couple's allowance. It will go only to families with children as it will be tapered away from higher rate taxpayers, which I assume is what the noble Lord is referring to, and therefore will be targeted more closely at people on low and middle incomes, and it will be substantially more generous than the married couple's allowance, with up to £442 compared with £197 for the married couple's allowance.

asked Her Majesty's Government:

My Lords, as the noble Lord will appreciate, in view of the market sensitivity of this issue, it would be inappropriate for me to comment.

My Lords, I thank the Minister for that uninformative reply. Does he agree that the most recent intervention in favour of the euro in September was not an unqualified success as the euro now stands somewhat below the rate at which it stood before the intervention? Does he further agree that the problems of the euro have to do with the fundamental difficulties of a euro-zone economy, as people do not want to invest in the euro? Does he accept that intervening is about as much good as giving a patient an aspirin when what he needs is a heart transplant?

My Lords, I do not know why the noble Lord should be so surprised at my first Answer. He did not seriously think that I would announce from this Dispatch Box that at some time in the near future we would embark on a support intervention for the euro or indeed for any other currency. I have made it clear from the very beginning that intervention is applicable only in very rare circumstances. As to whether the intervention in September was a success, I think it is difficult to say. There was a stabilisation of the euro for some time after the intervention took place. I do not think that anyone could make a judgment as to whether the subsequent decline in the value of the euro was greater or less as a result of the intervention.

My Lords, perhaps I may—

My Lords, is my noble friend aware—

Order!

My Lords, the feeling seems to be that we should hear from the noble Lord, Lord Shore.

My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend on the wisdom and common sense of his reply. Will he please communicate to the Governor of the European Central Bank similar advice to that which he has given in responding to that question today? If he did, would there not be just a chance that the euro might begin to stabilise?

My Lords, I am grateful for that unusual compliment from my noble friend Lord Shore. I am not sure quite what advice he is asking that I should give to the Governor of the European Central Bank, particularly as we are not among his subjects, so to speak. My noble friend will know, as the House will know, that the intervention which took place in September was not the initiative of the European Central Bank but of G7, including the Bank of Japan and the Federal Reserve Bank.

My Lords, does the Minister agree that the real lesson of the intervention is that the UK is now a bit player in world monetary affairs, that the decisions on intervention in support of the euro were in essence taken by the US, the Japanese and the EU, and that the Bank of England tagged along meekly behind, after the real discussions had taken place and the real decisions had been taken? Is that not the real lesson of being outside the euro-zone?

My Lords, the noble Lord is clearly more privy to the internal discussions within G7 than I am. It is a matter of fact that our participation in the intervention in September was relatively small in comparison with that of other countries, but I cannot accept any of the noble Lord's further speculation.

My Lords, is my noble friend aware how we on these Benches would have been most fearful for the continuation of his genial, authoritative and reassuring presence on the Front Bench if he had uncharacteristically confounded the House by seeking to satisfy the noble Lord, Lord Willoughby de Broke, on the substance of his Question?

My Lords, I do not think that the noble Lord, Lord Willoughby, expected an answer to his Question in the terms in which it was couched. We all recognise that euro-sceptics around the House seek a variety of opportunities to discuss their antagonism or support for the euro. The House is none the poorer for that.

My Lords, if the Minister does not want to deal directly with my noble friend's Question, perhaps I may ask him to cast back his mind to 9th October, which was the day that he performed his extraordinary volte-face on the subject of intervention in the foreign exchange markets to support the euro. I remind him of what he said. He justified the 180 degree U-turn in the Government's position by saying:

"Circumstances change and we change with them; if we did not we would be very foolish".—[Official Report, 9/10/00; col. 4.]

Does the Minister agree that that kind of unreliability and change of mind is what in the end causes the public to lose faith in politicians of all kinds?

My Lords, I recall precisely what I said on 9th October. The noble Lord, Lord Blackwell, asked me whether I still agreed with what I had said in March. I do not usually refer to what I have said in the past, but I shall repeat my words; namely, that,

"attempts to intervene are unlikely to have the desired effect in most cases".—[Official Report, 28/3/00; col. 729.]

That was true in March, it was true on 9th October and it remains true today, 31st October.

My Lords, does the Minister agree with the comment made during evidence recently given to the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee by Eddie George, the Governor of the Bank of England? He stated that:

"The integration of European capital markets would be an unqualified benefit".

Does the Minister also agree that long-term interest rates in Europe and in the United States are now virtually the same?

My Lords, I was not familiar with the comment made by Sir Eddie George to the House of Lords Select Committee. It sounds sensible, but I should need to read it in context to know whether it could possibly be supported as government policy.

asked Her Majesty's Government:

My Lords, it is important that the North East, along with other regions, should benefit from economic growth and prosperity. This Government have and will continue to provide new opportunities for a regionally focused approach to tackling these problems. In July, the Chancellor announced an additional £500 million for regional development agencies by 2003–04. One NorthEast will receive its full share of this extra money. That is good news for the region.

My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that encouraging reply. I acknowledge that the Government are doing a great deal for the North East, but it is a fact that unemployment in the region remains the highest of any region in the United Kingdom—worse now than in Northern Ireland. My noble friend referred to RDA budgets. Can he say, first, how the budget for One NorthEast compares with the budgets for other regional development agencies? Secondly, are levels of unemployment considered to be among the most important criteria when budgets and grants are determined?

My Lords, the share of the total RDA budget depends to some extent on inherited programmes. Decisions as regards the allocation of the additional moneys to which I referred have yet to be made in final detail. However, I can assure my noble friend that One NorthEast will receive an allocation that is appropriate to meet local economic problems, including the locally higher rate of unemployment.

My Lords, I can assure the noble Lord that last week's successful win of an MoD contract by the famous yard, Swan Hunter, has given an enormous boost to the morale of the people of the North East. Some 2,000 new jobs are to be created for a minimum of five years. However, is the noble Lord aware of the strategy put forward by One NorthEast to secure a European grant of £130 million to aid small and medium-sized businesses? Is he further aware that Commissioner Monti has held up this grant on a legal point for some 18 months? Does the noble Lord agree that, if this long delay could be brought to an end, the grant would be a further great aid to the region?

My Lords, as regards the European grant, discussions on the delivery of those moneys have been held between One NorthEast, officials from the relevant government departments in the North East and representatives of the Commission. I believe that any difficulties will shortly be resolved and that the grant will be rightly allocated to the North East. I join the noble Lord in underlining the importance of the award by the Ministry of Defence of the two ALSL contracts to the Swan Hunter shipyard. Those contracts will certainly provide substantial additional employment opportunities in the region. Furthermore, the US company Atmel has recently decided to take over the former Siemens plant on Tyneside, and a further 1,000 jobs are being created at Orange on North Tyneside. Substantial movements have been made by employers, who recognise the attractiveness of the workforce in Tyneside. Although rates of unemployment are still relatively high, employment figures are improving and unemployment is starting to fall.

My Lord, does the Minister agree that the University of Teesside is a very successful institution?

My Lords, yes. I am not entirely sure what lies behind the intervention of the noble Baroness, but I am happy to confirm that not only is the University of Teesside extremely successful. It has also greatly improved its facilities in recent years.

My Lords, does my noble friend agree that, along with the high rates of unemployment prevalent in the North East, it is also true to say that the economy of the region is extremely fragile? One reason is that many of the new jobs being created are technically quite vulnerable to change. I am thinking in particular of the new call centres. Can my noble friend confirm that sufficient resources will be made available to the North East to enable people to be retrained in work for the changes which will undoubtedly occur in jobs over the next five to 10 years?

My Lords, my noble friend raises a number of complex issues. It is certainly the Government's intention, as it will be for the regional development agency, One NorthEast, and other agencies, to ensure that adequate training is provided. Such training and retraining will be provided both for those in work and those out of work in recognition of the fact that training is an extremely important element of the skills of the local workforce. The North East has seen a substantial shift of employment opportunities into the service sector, including new jobs in call centres. Although such developments may be regarded as fragile, they nevertheless form an important part of the service economy. Indeed, the North East has been particularly successful in maintaining its share of such work. As technology and communications develop, no doubt skills will need to be built on and further developed. However, I underline a point that I made earlier; namely, that substantial investment is being made in manufacturing industry. The North East continues to be a major manufacturing region.

My Lords, despite the good news on employment prospects given by the noble Lord, is it not a fact that when the Government took office in 1997 unemployment in the North East was 2.6 per cent higher than the national average? Today it is 3.9 per cent higher. What will the Government do about that?

My Lords, the noble Lord is right to point out that the gap between the level of unemployment in the North East and that in the rest of the United Kingdom has worsened over the past few years, although I believe that the latest figures will show that the gap has now shrunk a little. I have outlined the efforts being made by the local RDA and the Government to reverse that trend. The Government regard it as a priority to try to close the gap so that relative prosperity in the North East may be assured.

My Lords, does the Minister agree that a helpful measure which could be taken by the Government as regards the North East would be to progressively implement their decision to introduce consolidated regional budgets covering all the relevant departments, and to do that with great speed and vigour? The North East needs all the help it can get. Such help would best be given through local decision taking.

My Lords, it is important that moneys allocated for development in the North East should be consolidated and flexible as regards local decision taking. As to the local RDA budget, it is intended that a single budget will be drawn up to cover the RDA's entire current spending programmes. Work is under way to complete the work so that the new budgets will be in place by April 2002. The coming financial year will be regarded as a transitional year. After that, the RDA will have moved on to a single budget which will offer the kind of flexibility being sought by the noble Lord.

asked Her Majesty's Government:

My Lords, following the Department of Health's deafblindness consultation, we intend to issue guidance under Section 7 of the Local Authority Social Services Act 1970, saying that authorities should identify the deafblind people in their areas and should ensure that assessment (to include consideration of one-to-one support) and service provision are appropriate to people with dual sensory impairment.

My Lords, can my noble friend confirm that the guidance to be issued under Section 7 will be legally binding on local authorities? If it is, can he further confirm that it will meet all the requirements provided for in my Deafblind Persons Bill? If those conditions are met, I shall immediately withdraw my Bill.

While I thank my noble friend very warmly, is he aware that I am echoing the views of 23,000 deafblind people living in Britain, most of whom have been neglected and isolated for many years? In fact, almost half of them have received no support at all. Happily, however, this new government policy will put an end to that scandalous state of affairs. Will the Government monitor progress to ensure that local authorities no longer evade their responsibilities to deafblind people?

My Lords, perhaps I may first pay tribute to my noble friend for his determination in this important area, and to other noble Lords who took part in the debate on his Bill.

I can confirm that, although local authorities are not under an obligation to follow Section 7 guidance to the letter, they are required to follow the path charted by the Secretary of State; they are not free to deviate from the guidance unless there is good reason to do so. In any case, they are not free to follow a substantially different course. I can assure my noble friend that we shall monitor the implementation of the guidance.

My Lords, if local authorities decide that they have not got the money, is this deemed "good reason", to use the Minister's words?

My Lords, the provision of adequate and appropriate services to deafblind people should be seen as a core part of a local authority's responsibilities. We expect local authorities to ensure that they discharge those responsibilities.

My Lords, I warmly welcome the Minister's announcement. Will he consider ring-fencing the money which is essential for the provision of these services?

No, my Lords. I do not consider that ring-fencing is appropriate. As I have already suggested, this is a core responsibility of local authorities. Often deafblind people are already in receipt of services, but sometimes those are inadequate. It may be a case of local authorities using their resources more efficiently rather than of needing extra resources. In any event, this should be seen in the context of the real growth in resources that the Government are giving to local authorities for expenditure on social service provision.

My Lords, does the Minister agree that one of the limiting factors in the provision of services is that there are few appropriate training courses for people who want to work with deafblind people? Do I understand from his previous answers that he believes local authorities should make room for the funding of such courses from their core budgets?

My Lords, the noble Earl is right to draw attention to issues in relation to training for deafblind services. My understanding is that training is available and is currently provided by a number of organisations, including the Council for the Advancement of Communication with Deaf People, Sense and Deafblind UK among others. But it is not mandatory and it is not a part of the standard social work training. As a result of the process of implementing the Section 7 guidance, I believe that local authorities will be in a better position to assess the needs of deafblind people in their areas. They will then be able to make a judgment as to whether they have the staff with the right training and qualifications to enable them to provide such services. Clearly, part of that will rest on a local authority's own expenditure decisions. But there may also be instances where, at a national level, we would need to consider whether any particular changes should be made in relation to the curricula of social work training to take account of specific deafblind needs.

My Lords, can the Minister give an assurance that when the new guidance is brought into play it will take into account that there has been a considerable history of misdiagnosis in this area? For instance, people have been termed "learning disabled" when they have suffered from a dual sensory impairment. Will this be kept in mind and worked into the structure? If a person was to be diagnosed as having an intellectual impairment when, in reality, he was suffering from a sensory impairment, the amount of psychological damage to that person could be catastrophic.

My Lords, the noble Lord makes an important point. Certainly the Government's intention is that every effort will be made to ensure that diagnoses are made correctly. I am not sure whether this comes under the compass of the Section 7 guidance because that is aimed specifically at the duties of local authorities in providing services and support to deafblind people. But it is a substantive point which the National Health Service should take particularly into account.

My Lords, I am sorry to come back again, but is my noble friend aware that, because there are only 23,000 deafblind people in Britain, paying for these services is peanuts in terms of local authority expenditure? It would be a shabby, shoddy excuse for local authorities to dodge their responsibilities on the grounds of cost.

My Lords, I have made it clear that we expect local authorities to implement with enthusiasm the guidance we will be issuing and to ensure that deafblind people receive a high quality of service and support. I do not believe that the resources question should be allowed to get in the way of local authorities providing what deafblind people have every right to expect.

My Lords, on behalf of my noble and learned friend Lord Falconer of Thoroton, I beg leave to move the Motion standing in his name on the Order Paper.

Moved, That the amendments for the Report stage be marshalled and considered in the following order:

Clauses 1 to 3,

Schedule 1,

Clauses 4 to 17,

Schedule 2,

Clauses 18 to 54,

Schedule 3,

Clauses 55 to 60,

Schedule 4,

Clauses 61 to 66,

Schedule 5,

Clauses 67 to 72,

Schedule 6,

Clauses 73 to 75,

Schedule 7,

Clauses 76 to 85,

Schedule 8,

Clauses 86 and 87.—(Lord Carter.)

My Lords, I strongly support the amendment of my noble friend. Those of your Lordships who, in one way or another, have had experience of dealing with criminals, must be aware that, when going to a crime, the criminal is thinking only of himself and his own interests. Criminals never seem to have the imagination, the upbringing or the ethical sense of wondering what effect their crimes will have upon other people. Now that we are progressing, I hope, in the rehabilitation of offenders and enlarging the responsibilities of the national probation service, I suggest, as did my noble friend Lady Blatch, that it is very important that we make criminals aware of the effect of their crimes upon their victims.

My Lords, I support the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, on this amendment. The matter was debated at some length in Committee. We are dealing with the aims of the service. One developing aspect of the criminal justice system is the extent to which we deal with restorative justice. The Home Office is interested in the subject and I have attended a number of its conferences organised by the Minister himself.

Restorative justice effectively means ensuring an offender's awareness of the effect of the crime on the victims and on the public. I believe that it is a rightful aim to include in this clause. Crime will not be reduced unless there is a clear strategy for dealing with those who offend. It is therefore right to include the rehabilitation of offenders as an aim of the Probation Service.

My Lords, I support those who have spoken to the amendment. As the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, said, sentencing and punishment will not achieve their aim unless they are directed at rehabilitating the offender so that he is less likely to re-offend. I realise that the words "the reduction of re-offending" are on the face of the Bill, but I cannot see the argument against including as one of the aims of the service the rehabilitation of offenders.

My Lords, I support both these amendments. The amendment before the House would improve the climate for restorative justice generally. The Government are well aware that that can take place on a semi-informal, community basis, which would be much more rapid in its effect than the normal procedure of going through the courts.

As regards Amendment No. 2, it must stand out a mile that offending will not be reduced unless offenders have been rehabilitated. They need a place to live and a job of work to do: they need to relate to other people, particularly to their families.

My Lords, I, too, support the amendments. Prisons have become places of containment. They are rather like conveyor belts: prisoners go in and come out all the time. It is important that rehabilitation is emphasised, especially in regard to young offenders; otherwise it could be forgotten.

My Lords, this has been a useful opening debate. I have listened to opinions from all sides of the House, and we had a similar debate in Committee. There is not much between any of us as regards what we expect of the Probation Service. It is more a matter of how that expectation is constructed and where it is placed in terms of the legislation and regulations.

The aims of the service have been carefully devised to inform everything that the service does. We want to position the national probation service within the criminal justice system as a law enforcement agency—as the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, said—not as a social work organisation. We are entirely at one on that.

We also want the new service to concentrate on those activities that reduce crime. It must have the purpose of crime reduction at its heart and its core. In many cases the way in which you reduce the likelihood of an offender re-offending is by assisting his rehabilitation. Again, we are at one. That is why rehabilitation is specified in Clause 1(1)(b) as an overarching purpose of the service. It is stated right at the beginning of the legislation; it is at the core of our argument. We do not believe that it needs to be re-stated as an aim of the service. To that extent, we are at one.

Part of the rehabilitation process is designed to ensure that the offender is aware of the effects of the crime on victims and on the public. For that reason, the Government have begun to ensure that the interests of victims are placed at the centre of our concerns in tackling and undermining the impact of crime. That is why we have consulted widely this year—and our approach has received wide support—on the development of, for example, victim personal statements, so that the views of the victim can be taken into consideration when courts deliberate over matters relating to those who are found guilty of offences.

But rehabilitation can go much wider than that, to include all kinds of social needs with which other agencies are better placed to deal. Adding specific aims such as these to the current list of aims—which has been devised to cover in broad terms everything that the service does—would deflect the focus of the service away from its primary role as a law enforcer.

During the passage of the Bill we have spent a great deal of time debating the aims of the new Probation Service. I still believe that in the amendment the noble Baroness is confusing purposes with aims. Rehabilitation is already a purpose of the service, as I have pointed out. It would be a nonsense for the same thing to be both a purpose—having accepted the fact that it is a purpose—and an aim, given that the purposes are required to be pursued with regard to the aims.

I have more sympathy with the noble Baroness's point about victims. Work in respect of victims is an important part of the criminal justice system and of the work of the Probation Service. We are already placing various requirements on the service in respect of this through Clause 66. We also propose to make regulations under Clause 1(3) to ensure that appropriate work not covered by Clause 66 is made a purpose. We shall consider whether we can also use these regulations to cover the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, about the impact of crime on victims. Our intention would be to include that in the regulations, where we believe it would be more appropriately located. Again, we should not confuse purposes with aims.

I trust that having heard what I have said in regard to the many valuable points made in this short debate, the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw the amendment. For clarity, I repeat: I do not think that we should confuse aims and purposes. We have examined the position carefully with regard to victims. While we do not believe that this provision should be stated as an aim, because we believe that it is more a purpose, it is our intention to consider whether it can be included in regulations as set out under Clause 1(3) which contains the reference,

"Regulations may extend the purposes".

That is the area where we consider that we might regulate. Perhaps I may also remind the House that, under Clause 66, we are placing various requirements on the service with regard to the provisions of that clause, which most noble Lords will accept as being extremely important in the context of the Bill.

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his reply. I shall need to read it carefully. I think I am grateful for what he said about the use of secondary legislation—although I would argue strongly that rehabilitation is a fundamental activity for the Probation Service and it is still my view that it should be on the face of the Bill.

In replying, the noble Lord did not once use the word "functions". We were not talking about "aims". Clause 2 sets out the functions of the service and it is to those that I refer, not its overall aims and objectives.

There is a further point that was not addressed by the noble Lord. Is he defending the idea that the main aim of the Probation Service is,

"the proper punishment of offenders"?

It is the courts that punish; the Probation Service oversees, manages and supervises the programmes that are set out in court. It seems to me wrong to set down the proper punishment of offenders as the service's main aim, although it is included in the clause that sets out its functions. Before I decide what to do about the amendment, perhaps the noble Lord would like to address that point.

My Lords, we have set out very clear and simple aims in Clause 2. Indeed, it talks about the "aims" of the service, which are then outlined; for example,

"the protection of the public, the reduction of re-offending, [and] the proper punishment of offenders".

Yes, the service does have a relationship with the proper punishment of offenders. It is all about administering that punishment in the community and, as people are released from custody, working closely with, and ensuring the proper punishment of, offenders. I take the various orders that are made as a form of punishment conducted in the community to be part of the punishment process. Yes, they are about rehabilitation and about the protection of the public. That is exactly where we are trying to go in reshaping and refocusing the Probation Service and making it more purposeful.

I was under the impression that the noble Baroness shared that objective. Indeed, she should. I have heard her previously make the point that when she was a Minister she wanted to see the Probation Service much more like we wish to see it now that we are in government.

My Lords, there is nothing on the face of the Bill which says that offenders should be aware of the impact of their offences and their activities on victims. I wish to test the opinion of the House.

moved Amendment No. 2:

Page 2, line 10, at end insert—

("( ) the rehabilitation of offenders").

moved Amendment No. 3:

Page 2, line 27, at end insert ("probation").

My Lords, we on these Benches wish to identify ourselves entirely with what the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, has just said. Names are important. These boards will have few enough powers and dignity; they are entitled to have a name that means something.

My Lords, we do not disagree with the name "local probation boards". However, we disagree that that needs to be on the face of the Bill. I think that, in practice, they are likely to be called local probation boards. However, we do not see the need to use the word "probation" in the formal legal text. For that reason I argue that the amendment is otiose and unnecessary. I invite the House to reject it.

My Lords, if my amendment is unnecessary, why state that they shall be known as local boards? That seems absurd. They are to be called something in law; that is, local boards. The noble Lord says that, in practice, they are likely to be called local probation boards and does not suggest that it is wrong to call them that. I beg to move.

moved Amendment No. 4:

Page 52, line 10, at end insert—

("( ) The chief officer is to be appointed by the Board with the approval of the Secretary of State.").

My Lords, we on these Benches concur strongly with what the noble Baroness said. The powers and responsibilities of what we can now call local probation boards under the Bill are extremely ill categorised. One is used to talking of power without responsibility. As the Bill is drafted, the boards will have responsibility and no power—an even worse state of affairs. At Second Reading, I called them "eunuch boards". I think that that is not an unfair or inaccurate way of describing the conjugation of powers and responsibilities provided for in the Bill.

I hope not to detain the House for too long, but draw attention to Clause 5 in which the functions of the local board are set out. They are, first,

"to make arrangements for ensuring that sufficient provision is made for the purposes mentioned in section 1".

Clause 1(1) states that,

"(a) courts … be given assistance in determining the appropriate sentences to pass … and

(b) the supervision and rehabilitation of such persons".

Those are two enormous and crucially important aspects of government and state policy. Those boards will have to ensure that sufficient provision is made for their role in giving effect to community orders, supervising persons released from prison on licence, and providing accommodation in approved premises. These are major matters of state criminal policy.

As the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, enumerated, the powers by which the boards are supposed to undertake these heavy responsibilities are almost non-existent. At every turn the Secretary of State has retained the whip hand: over finance, policy, procedures, appointments where he has a monopoly, property and contracts. What is left for those boards to undertake of their own volition and power? Precious little.

It may be asked: why bother about the appointment of the chief probation officer? We believe that this is a sine qua non for any cohesion, clarity or loyalty. One does not have to go to business school to know that a house divided against itself will not stand. One does not have to go to management consultants to know that a man cannot have two masters; and the chief probation officer certainly will. Will he look to the Home Secretary or to his or her board?

The answer is obscure, except that we know that in the ultimate the appointment is made by the Secretary of State. I can see two common situations which will plague not only the board and the chair of the board but in particular the poor chief probation officer. One example is when the CPO is out of sympathy with the line agreed by the board on any matter relating to those duties. Perhaps he or she should then run off to the Home Secretary and say, "Mr Home Secretary, they are requiring me to do this. I do not think it is right. Will you please override them?" That will always be a temptation, but I suspect that it would simply sow doubt, confusion and unhappiness where there should be unity and effectiveness.

Another example is when the board adopts a different line from Home Office policy on the delivery of its mighty duties. What is the CPO to do then? They know what their employment master plans or wants, but they also know what their local board is planning and what local circumstances may require.

One does not have to go far back in history to know that some Home Secretaries have taken a very strong line that has not found sympathy with the existing committees. I suspect that many on the Government Benches were extremely happy that the previous Home Secretary could not order a chief probation officer to take certain actions in defiance of the wishes of the local board. For those and many other reasons, we strongly favour the amendment.

Finally, there is no precedent. The relationship of chief constables with their committees is not as set down here. The committee appoints the chief constable. The same is true of health trusts or magistrates' courts committees. Not even the most draconian holding company would require the chief executive and director of one of its subsidiary operating boards to be appointed by head office rather than by the board. Of course, head office will have a say, but the appointment will be made by the board. To do otherwise is to diminish the standing of the board.

I understand that the Government want a national service, but the amendment is not inconsistent with a national service. In fact, it makes the prospect of an effective national service more likely. Able people will not sit on the boards if they are stripped of all meaning. The amendment would restore a little power, authority and dignity to them.

My Lords, I have had a long association with the probation service. As my noble friend Lord Phillips of Sudbury said in his powerful speech, we shall vote for the amendment. The provisions in the Bill are another move towards the centralisation of power that is one of the least attractive qualities of some members of the present Administration. Of course there has been devolution to Scotland and Wales, which we supported, but in England some Ministers—not all of them—seem determined to increase their power and that of their department at the expense of adequate representation of the interests of local communities.

The process is described as "modernisation"—a word that has literally no meaning but is used with monotonous regularity to justify propositions such as the one we are discussing. The Government propose in Schedule 1 that the chief probation officer should be appointed by the Home Secretary. The amendment proposes a sensible formula under which the local probation board, all of whose members are to be appointed by the Secretary of State in any event, should choose the chief probation officer, subject only to the consent of the Home Secretary. What is wrong with that?

At first glance it may appear to some that the differences between us on the issue are pretty narrow, but they are not; they are of substance. We have the gravest objections to a local probation board having a chief officer imposed on it by a government department. As my noble friend Lord Phillips of Sudbury said, the CPO's principal loyalty would then have to be to the government department. If he wanted to move on to be a chief officer in another part of the country, he could apply only to the Home Secretary. There would be no question of local representatives asking him whether he was a fit and proper person to hold that office in their community.

If the current provisions remain, they will create suspicion and hostility, which the amendment would avoid. The amendment would neatly create a system analogous to the appointment of chief officers of police, who are appointed not by Ministers, but by independent, locally based police authorities, subject to the consent of the Secretary of State.

The formula has worked well for the police, so why should it not be replicated for local probation boards? I fear that there may be a clear answer. I understand from people outside the Home Office with knowledge and experience of the police service that the department is now examining a centralising formula to change that system as well. That would undermine the position of local police authorities on the appointment of chief officers of police.

Where will the process of transferring power from local communities to Whitehall end? As I reminded the House some months ago, my old friend, the late Douglas Jay, caused a considerable uproar when, as a junior Minister in the post-war Labour Government, he said that in his opinion the gentleman in Whitehall really did know best. That approach lies at the heart of the argument. I do not believe that it is right. It may be suggested that the Government's approach would improve the efficiency of the service, but I doubt that it would. I have great respect for many Home Office officials with whom I have had the pleasure of working over the years. Many of them are men and women of considerable quality with an admirable dedication to the principles of public service. However, even some of them might recoil at the suggestion that these changes would automatically raise the quality of the Probation Service. Of course, mistakes can be made at local level and sometimes they are serious, but the Home Office can hardly suggest that its record is blameless. We all remember the disaster of the immigration and nationality department computer and the similar problems that beset the Passport Agency, resulting in long queues in Petty France for passports. The idea that central government knows best in all cases is an illusion.

So much for the suggestion that national control of the service can be equated with greater efficiency. It is simply not true. We have an opportunity tonight to strike a blow against the policy of creeping centralisation of power to Whitehall. Let us take it.

My Lords, I, too, support the amendment. Like the noble Lord, Lord Harris, I have been a Home Office Minister. I cannot understand why the Home Secretary is so keen to have the power to appoint and impose chief probation officers.

In Committee the Minister said, and repeated regularly, that the whole purpose of the Bill is to have a national probation service locally delivered, presumably by means of the local, now to be called, probation boards. The Home Secretary already has the power to appoint the members and chairmen of those boards. Why cannot he accept that the people whom he appoints will be able to choose the right person as their chief probation officer? I cannot understand why he wishes to appoint that person himself rather than leave the board to appoint him, perhaps with the approval of the Secretary of State. As has been said, that is what happens in the police force. In many ways, one might consider that the position of a chief constable is far more sensitive than that of a chief probation officer. Yet, I believe that I am right in saying that the appointment of a chief constable is made by the police authority with the approval of the Secretary of State.

In Committee my noble friend Lady Blatch asked what would happen if a conflict were to arise. I read the Minister's speech and I do not believe that he answered that question. It seems to me that potentially the proposal is a recipe for chaos. Presumably, in the end the chief probation officer's loyalty and duty will be to the person who appoints him rather than to a committee of which he is a member and on whose behalf he is intended to provide the local service.

As has been said, at present there is an overweening desire in the Home Office to centralise power, and that is not helpful to the Probation Service. It would be far better for the local board to have the power to appoint its own probation officers. Then we really would have a nalional service locally provided.

My Lords, perhaps I may gently put forward an alternative point of view in relation to some of these issues and suggest that an excessive level of paranoia may exist with regard to some of the Home Office's approaches. Perhaps I may remind the House, first, that although chief constables are appointed at a local level, they are also appointed from a list approved by the Home Secretary. That long-standing practice has been in operation for many years on a bipartisan/tripartisan basis.

Secondly, I remind the House that the Benches opposite removed regional health authorities and appointed civil servants as regional general managers as part of the NHS Executive. That practice has been in place for a considerable number of years. It was implemented to ensure more effective delivery of improved management throughout the NHS.

Thirdly, perhaps I may remind the House of the report published in the past week or so by the Chief Inspector of the Probation Service about the fiasco over CRAMS, the Probation Service computer system. It is hardly a glittering testimony to local implementation of a much needed computer system.

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. He is levelling an accusation at a service at local level. However, with considerable feeling I must tell him that the fault in relation to CRAMS is at national level and not at the service level.

My Lords, perhaps the noble Baroness will allow me to complete what I was about to say. I was going on to say that the fault lay at both levels. Problems exist in relation to the national implementation of computer systems both at national level within government service and at local level. The idea that all those faults rest in Whitehall, both under the noble Baroness's own government and under this Government, is frankly mistaken.

I believe that as a result of the proposed change there will be greater integration across the criminal justice agencies, which is much needed at the local level. There will also be much greater consistency in the application and implementation of nationally agreed schemes.

I also draw the House's attention to the fact that the Prison Service is a national service. At the heart of some of the changes lies the desire to ensure a closer working relationship between the Probation Service and the Prison Service. Correctly, the Prison Service is answerable through the Home Secretary to Parliament because deprivation of liberty is involved. However, perhaps I may suggest that a degree of deprivation of liberty is also involved in the Probation Service's work. That service enforces court orders which restrict the manoeuvrability and movement of people. One could argue that it is absolutely right that the Home Secretary, answerable through Parliament for the activities of a national service, should have a greater say over the appointment of chief officers at local level. I leave those points with noble Lords. I believe that there is another side to the story.

My Lords, I had no intention of taking up the time of the House until I heard the noble Lord's opening remarks. I believe that he deserves considerable congratulations, not on his courage but on his audacity.

I believed that we had listened to four or five moderate, statesmanlike, sensible speeches, with which I suspect that everyone on this side of the House will agree openly and publicly. I am sure that many on the government side will be of a similar view. However, when the noble Lord used the word "paranoia' about those speeches, I considered that he was over-stepping the mark by a very long way. I am sure that he has done a great deal to convince people such as myself that he is totally wrong and that those who have spoken so far on this side of your Lordships' House are entirely right.

My Lords, I shall be brief. Perhaps I may ask the Minister one or two questions. I am reliably informed that at present at least 20 chief probation officers are not seeking employment in the new centralised service. That number could be as high as 24. When one considers that out of 52 probation areas in the country 24 chief probation officers are not seeking employment, that must indicate that something is fundamentally wrong with the principle that we are trying to establish.

Perhaps I may ask the Minister whether he undertook an exercise of holding exit interviews of the people who are working in the field to discover their opinion of the centralised service. If he had done so, he would have found that they are absolutely clear in their view that, if someone is employed centrally and working to a local hoard, there will be no accountability. More importantly, centralisation would take away the local initiative through which they have contributed so greatly to the probation work in their area.

I believe that, in two or three years' time, management consultants will be appointed at the Home Office to find out how such a mistake occurred. Is it not time that we viewed local initiatives as being far more important than we do currently and that chief probation officers are seen as servants of the local boards?

My Lords, I have listened intently to the debate. I realise that the issue is important and that it goes to the heart of what the Government are trying to achieve. The noble Baroness suggested that I did not understand what she said in Committee. That is not at all the case. I understand perfectly the view of the noble Baroness and of Members on the Liberal Democrat Benches. There is a fundamental disagreement between us. The noble Lord, Lord Harris, spelt it out plainly. A fundamental disagreement exists in what we see as being the future of the national probation service.

I want to go through the amendments briefly because they go further than has been suggested in your Lordships' House this afternoon.

Amendment No. 4 provides for the appointment of chief officers to be made by local boards with the approval of the Secretary of State rather than by the Secretary of State. Amendment No. 5 is a corollary of that, and takes away the Secretary of State's power to appoint chief officers. Amendment No. 33 would have the effect of providing for chief officers to be treated as any other employee of a probation board in respect of transfers to the new boards. Amendment No. 7 would remove the power of the Secretary of State to make regulations delegating certain functions of the local board to the chief officer, so it is more than just a question of the appointment, locally or nationally, of the chief officer of the local probation service.

The noble Lord, Lord Carlisle, quoted part of the deliberations at Committee stage. I made the point then that this was to be a national service delivered locally. That is exactly what the Government intend. We believe that it is right to establish a national probation service for England and Wales. The noble Lord, Lord Harris, seemed to conjure up some sinister implication from the fact that we had made a fundamental policy decision to establish a national rather than a local service and saw this as creeping centralisation.

I have been in politics a long time and I take this very simple view. There are many services—perhaps the majority—that should be administered and delivered locally, and democratically decided upon locally. But there are some services that the Government believe—and no doubt Members opposite during their time in government believed—should be better run from the centre, for very good organisational and operational reasons and for reasons of policy consistency. We disagree about this particular service, and that is what this debate is about.

One of the key advantages of a national service would be the ability to appoint chief officers centrally. Chief officers, in our view, are the key to successful service provision. Good management is about ensuring that we have a good quality service, whether it is administered nationally or locally. Good management is the key. We believe in creating a cadre of experienced, nationally appointed officers who understand—from the perspective of the centre, yes—exactly what it is we intend to achieve with a national service. We believe it is essential to be able to ensure that the appropriate people are appointed in the appropriate places.

The Government also believe that it is important to make best use of the precious resource of the chief officer. We believe that there are various functions of boards that are best performed by chief officers without the need for reference to the board. We also consider it desirable for certain functions to be performed in a similar, consistent manner, throughout the national probation service for England and Wales. We do not want the chief officer in one area being able to do something but perhaps his or her counterpart needing to refer to the board in another area. The power to regulate on this matter, which will be subject to full parliamentary scrutiny, is a means of achieving that objective.

One area in which we intend to regulate to provide for the delegation of functions from boards to chief officers is the recruitment of staff below assistant chief officer level, where it is right that the chief officer should have full powers without reference to the board.

As I explained to the noble Baroness in Committee, these amendments, if carried, would put a large hole in the concept of a national probation service. They do drive a coach and horses through our policy objective. Any national organisation worth its salt should have the ability to appoint its senior executives centrally.

The Government are satisfied that it is right for chief probation officers to be appointed by the Secretary of State. Our intention is to involve local board chairs in the chief officer appointments (where there is to be a change of chief officer) in order to ensure that there is some local say in the selection. But it is a matter of balance. The Government make no apology for believing that the central dimension should not be subjugated to the local. Quite frankly, the current system whereby chief officers are appointed locally has not delivered as efficient and effective a probation service as perhaps it should have done. There are many excellent chief probation officers and some excellent local services, but there are also some of lower quality. We believe that the appointment of chief officers will help to raise the standard and achieve greater consistency. It is for those reasons that we argue very strongly in favour of our case.

The Government also believe that chief officers should be appointed by local boards to serve as statutory office holders rather than being employed by boards. This is essential in order to ensure a clear line management relationship between the Secretary of State and chief officials. Treating existing chief officers as any other employee of the probation committees or boards in respect of staff transfers to boards would defeat the objective.

Clearly, we accept that there is disagreement between us on the way in which we intend to proceed. There is a philosophical divide, but it is one for which we make no apology. I think it was the noble Lord, Lord Carlisle, who said that this was a recipe for chaos. What happens when one has central/local conflicts? At the moment there is, from time to time, a chaotic state of affairs that arises because of the relationship being the other way around. The Government's view is that these things are capable of resolution. We have to establish some partnerships to achieve that objective. At the end of the day the Government believe that in creating a national service we are much better off having a system of national appointments that will provide for consistency of service, of objective and of service delivery.

For those very important and powerful reasons, we urge your Lordships' House to reject these amendments.

My Lords, one thing that the noble Lord has said is absolutely right; namely, that there is a fundamental difference between us. I should like to think that it was a philosophical difference, but I do not believe it is. I think it is a practical one. We have an over-ambitious Secretary of State who is more interested in control at his own level than in the proper delivery of the service.

The Minister's response, and the response at the previous stage, did not reflect an understanding of the arguments pressed, nor did the noble Lord address some of the key points raised in the debate. The noble Lord has said that one of the differences between us is that we do not actually agree with the principle of a national service. I have said more than once that I do not disagree with it. The noble lord, Lord Phillips, said he did not disagree with the idea of having a national service. We all agree that that service should be effectively delivered at a local level. We all know that between boards and sometimes even within boards the profile of an area is very different and will call for different responses from different chief officers who understand their own area. There is no divide on the principle of having a national service. There is a serious divide between us as to how it should be delivered at a local level.

I repeat that the Secretary of State is not short of powers to deliver a consistent national service. He has powers to approve the appointment of the chief officer, but the appointment is made by the local boards. He has powers to appoint all the board members and, in extremis, to dismiss them. He has full control of 100 per cent of the funding of the service. He has the power to set the standards and the targets for the service. He can establish consistent performance. The noble Lord has said that it would be impossible to have consistency of performance. It is perhaps different from having a service that responds materially to the needs of the area. Consistency of performance can be secured through the inspectorate. Many mechanisms are available to the Secretary of State to do something about it if the service is not delivered.

My noble friend Lord Carlisle asked about central/local conflict but the Minister did not answer. He simply referred to the point having been raised but he gave no true answer to that question. It is more than giving the local boards a say in the appointment of a chief officer.

The noble Lord has misunderstood the debate. It is not about having a local say. It is a constitutional argument about ownership and responsibility going together at the operational level of the service in the local area. I wish to test the opinion of the House on this amendment.