| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Wilkinson: I welcome what my hon. Friend is saying about the Government's strong desire to see an extension of liberalisation throughout the European economic area and, I presume, all European civil aviation conference member countries' jurisdictions as well. However, would it not be utterly wrong if the European Union were to arrogate to itself the right to negotiate air service agreements on behalf of its member countries, because that would create a dual situation in Europe, which could lead only to conflict and be to the advantage of the European economic area countries rather than those that are, like ourselves--for the time being at any rate--members of the European Union?
Mr. Norris: My hon. Friend reminds me of the important point that he made in his speech about who would negotiate in relation to third countries. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and, indeed, his predecessors, are absolutely clear that it is appropriate for
member states to continue to negotiate such matters unilaterally and that there is little to commend the proposition that services be negotiated at Community level by the Commission. I suggest that it is hard to determine the advantage, other than the theoretical advantage, which would accrue. The interests of member states, their relationship with third countries throughout the world, the history of that relationship, and the ties of language, tradition or custom may bind individual members of the Community, but there are areas that differ between member states. All that suggests that unilateral negotiation is infinitely preferred. My hon. Friend is right to make that point.
If the definition of subsidiarity is that the Commission shall do only that which the member state cannot better do itself, that proposition in relation to the negotiation of third-party agreements would appear to commend exactly my right hon. Friend's proposal, and I know that in due course he will wish to say more on that extremely important subject, where, sadly, our view and that of the Commission would appear to be at odds.
In conclusion, I merely repeat how pleased I have been to be able to debate this subject, however inadequately, with my hon. Friend. Some member states have not always been predisposed towards an open market in aviation, and the United Kingdom has a justifiably proud record in leading Europe down the path of liberalisation. The Community has made good progress in recent years in creating the legal framework for a single European aviation market, but opening up access to routes is simply not enough. We need to root out any obstacles to free and fair competition, and the greatest of those obstacles is state aid. The benefits of liberalisation will be seriously diluted if efficient airlines cannot fully exploit their competitive advantage because other carriers are bolstered by state handouts.
The Government look forward to the time when all member states accept that any form of state support to airlines is fundamentally inconsistent with the principle of the single market. United Kingdom airlines have prospered without receiving any form of state aid, despite facing unfair competition from airlines in member states that do. The Government are committed to seeing the end of those practices, and to seeing aviation services provided on a genuinely commercial basis.
I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend for giving us the opportunity to debate this important issue, and I hope that he will have observed, from the clarity with which I am able to put forward the Government's position, that we take the issue extremely seriously.
Mr. Michael Clapham (Barnsley, West and Penistone):
I sought this debate after meeting South Yorkshire probation officers about two weeks ago to discuss the operation of the service. I was accompanied by my hon. Friends the Members for Sheffield, Central (Mr. Caborn) and for Sheffield, Heeley (Mr. Michie). Since then, I have met probation officers to discuss subsequent developments.
Sir Irvine Patnick (Sheffield, Hallam):
I presume that that was a party caucus meeting; otherwise, I would have expected to be invited.
Mr. Clapham:
It certainly was not. I thought that invitations had been distributed to Members from both main parties throughout South Yorkshire, and I am unable to elaborate on whether the hon. Gentleman received one--or, indeed, on why he did not receive one, if he did not.
It was clear from our discussion that the South Yorkshire probation service had responded positively to the challenges of recent years. I assume that the Minister has seen the service's annual report for 1994-95. If he has, he will have noted the increase in all aspects of probation work.
The number of pre-sentencing reports to the criminal courts has increased by nearly 15 per cent.; the supervision of offenders given community sentences has risen by 18 per cent., nearly twice the increase in 1993-94; there has been a 17 per cent. increase in the amount of automatic conditional release work; occupancy of bail hostels has risen by 10 per cent., and demand for welfare reports in the family courts has increased by 3.5 per cent. There has clearly been a dramatic rise in the work of the South Yorkshire probation service.
Impressive though those figures are, I must emphasise that the organisation aims not just to achieve numerical volume but to provide an efficient and effective service. What is not evident from the figures is the commitment to developing work programmes for specific groups of offenders that are intended to deal with certain types of offending behaviour. I think that the Minister will agree that that is an important development--a development that has taken place not just in South Yorkshire but throughout the probation service.
The South Yorkshire probation service's main function is the supervision of offenders on community orders, with the aim of preventing reoffending. In that way, the service makes a positive contribution to the community, ensuring public safety and strengthening ties. It works not in isolation, but in the community. Officers constantly interact with offenders who, while conscious of their actions, are not always conscious of the consequences of those actions. Those who have decided to change the qualifications for probation officers do not seem to have taken that on board.
Probation work is done in a social context. It is a complex process, often requiring the fixed ideas of offenders to be broken down so that they can be integrated and can live with others in harmony, without causing the problems that led to their initial contact with the probation service. Such a complex social process requires mature
officers with good education and a good training;it requires the understanding that mature recruits bring to the job.
That understanding, however, needs to be underpinned by education and training of a high standard. I believe that the necessary educational qualifications should be gained in universities, which can provide theoretical knowledge that can then be linked to practical skills.
The South Yorkshire probation service feels that the abolition of the requirement for people to hold diplomas resulting from a two-year course in social work or its equivalent before they can be appointed as probation officers amounts to deskilling. I agree. I do not believe that the proposals for in-service training will provide the necessary combination of theory and practice. Even at this 11th hour, I ask the Minister to consider implementing a new two-year diploma course. If he cannot do so, he should at least be able to tell us that he is prepared to review the matter again with the Central Council for Education and Training in Social Work.
I am aware that the National Association of Probation Officers referred the whole matter of training to a judicial review. That review did not fully support NAPO's contentions, but I understand that the judge said that there was now a void, and that there should be appropriate educational and training qualifications for probation officers. Perhaps the Minister will expand on that.
According to the Dewes report, which was commissioned by the Government, the diploma in social work inhibits the recruitment of potentially valuable probation officers. The figures show, however, that the service is not losing nationally or regionally: it is obtaining mature recruits. In 1993, more than 50 per cent. of recruits were over the age of 30, and more than40 per cent. had previous work experience. Perhaps the real disincentive has been caused by the fact that, in 1994, the Government cut £17 million from the probation service's education budget, thus reducing the number of available places.
Why, the South Yorkshire probation service asks, do the Government want to dismantle the current system of education and training, which is supported by NAPO and the Association of Chief Officers of Probation? The Industrial Society found its training and recruitment methods very effective.
It would seem--no doubt the Minister will expand on this--from leaks in the media that the Government wish to dismantle the probation service qualification, so that they can recruit more ex-service men and women, in the belief that they will instil more discipline. If that is really their objective, it results from a mistaken view of the probation service's work--like the belief that recruits do not require theoretical knowledge.
I again draw the Minister's attention to the fact that probation officers work with drug addicts, with people who are responsible for sexual abuse, with people who have been involved in family violence as well as family breakdown, and with the mentally ill. There is a need for a great deal of understanding, and that comes from an educational qualification steeped in much of the theory that applies to social work. Such education, linked to practice on the job, can provide the necessary skills to enable a probation officer to work well in the community.
Another reason why the Government want to dismantle the probation service came to the fore in an announcement only a week or so ago. The Guardian carried the headline
"Probation Pay Linked to Crime". I do not know whether the Minister saw that article, but he will no doubt be aware of the proposal for a pay-related bonus system. Probation officers in South Yorkshire feel that that would devalue the service. As we are now aware, the Home Secretary seems to be seriously considering the introduction of what I would refer to as a ludicrous performance-related pay system, which is linked to whether a probation officer's clients reoffend.
That barmy idea was proposed for the police force and withdrawn. The work that a probation officer does, to which I have referred, is even more complex, and a pay-related system would lead to all kinds of problems. It is an absolutely ridiculous idea, and would result in probation officers recommending for supervision under community orders only offenders they judge are least likely to reoffend. That would be the obvious way to ensure that they would receive their bonuses.
Those people who had been to prison or had a record of reoffending would not be recommended for community service. The system will ultimately lead to reduced pay levels in the service, which will deter the high-calibre recruits currently joining it.
I ask the Minister to reflect on the system's ultimate results. Are we saying that judges will be on bonus-related pay, and that their payment by results will be related to the length of sentences they impose? If that increased, as it ultimately would, the prison population, would prison officers be paid more to supervise the rise in the prison population? If so, are we to say that they are likely to receive decreases in pay if the prisoners they have been supervising were to reoffend? On reflection, I am sure that the Minister will agree that introducing a bonus-related pay system in the probation service is ludicrous and barmy.
As I am sure the Minister will be aware, there has been a fall in recorded crime of 2 per cent. in South Yorkshire. Burglary overall has fallen by 11 per cent. There was a fall of 1 per cent. in violent crime, and there has been a fall of 10 per cent. in the number of sexual offences. Those figures reflect in part--I emphasise, in part--the effectiveness of the South Yorkshire probation service.I say "in part" because I am aware that other agencies are involved in those welcome statistics, such as the police and the social services.
The probation service approach to offenders really works. There is a mountain of evidence to support that contention, but I shall use only two examples.
A cost-benefit analysis of probation-style programmes in America showed that the net saving of such programmes was $68,000 per offence. A study in the United Kingdom in 1993 followed a group of young offenders who had taken part in an intensive probation programme and compared them with a group of offenders who had been given custodial sentences. It showed that the volume of reconvictions of those given custodial sentences was 100 per cent. higher than for those who had undertaken an intensive probation course. The probation service approach is successful.
12.59 pm
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |