| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Criminal Justice and Court Services Bill
Lords amendments in lieu of certain Lords amendments to which the Commons have disagreed, considered.
Schedule 1
Local Boards
Lords amendment: No. 122, in page 46, line 15, at end insert--
("( ) Regulations made by virtue of sub-paragraph (4) and coming into force on or after the coming into force of section 4 must make provision--
(a) for the selection procedure for the chairman, the chief officer and the other members of the board who are to be appointed by the Secretary of State to include selection panels,
(b) in the case of the chief officer, for the board to be represented on any selection panel making a final recommendation to the Secretary of State.")
3.54 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Mike O'Brien): I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in their amendment in lieu of Lords amendment No. 121.
The amendment requires selection panels to be set up in respect of all appointments made to local probation boards by the Secretary of State after the National Probation Service comes into effect. It further requires that the board be represented on any selection panel making a final recommendation about the appointment of the chief officer.
On consideration of Lords amendments, the House rightly disagreed to an amendment that would have made local probation boards responsible for the appointment of chief probation officers. Our view is that such appointments should be made by the Secretary of State. We regard this as one of the essential elements in the creation of a truly national service that is well equipped to reduce reoffending and to protect the public.
To ensure that the National Probation Service is ready to come into being on 1 April 2001, we have undertaken preparatory work and set up arrangements for the appointment of chief officers. We have ensured that a local representative, usually the chairman designate of the board, will be included as a member of the selection panel. That is important in order to ensure adequate local input into the selection decision.
On further consideration in another place, the Government's proposals were agreed, subject to the amendment now before us. This ensures that the procedure of securing local involvement in selection that the Government have begun will continue into the new service.
I commend the amendment to the House.
Mr. Nick Hawkins (Surrey Heath): My right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) has suggested in debates on the Government's earlier versions of clauses relating to this issue that, although there may be some merit in the principle of chief officers of probation boards being appointed centrally--and we recognise that the Government have now, in national guillotine week, been forced to make further concessions--our colleagues in
another place raised legitimate concerns about the proposal. In particular, the question was raised as to where the balance of responsibility should lie when a chief officer is centrally appointed. For example, if someone serving a probation order were injured during their detention in a probation hostel, who would be liable?In my previous professional career, as well as in my parliamentary career, I have dealt with the legal side of those sentenced to probation orders. I am well aware that the questions of legal responsibility and liability are exceptionally important. Conservative Members are not convinced that the Government have addressed those concerns fully in the last-minute concession and revision that they have been forced to make. The amendment deals only with an alteration in the process of appointing the chief officer, and not with the substantive point about which my noble Friend Baroness Blatch spoke in another place two days ago.
There is little precedent for the method of appointing chief officers that the Government have now chosen. Chief constables and chief executives of national health service trusts are not appointed centrally. We have pointed out on many occasions when dealing with the Bill that the Secretary of State is proposing to give himself great powers. That is another example of the Government behaving like control freaks. It is recognised inside and beyond this place that this is a control-freak Government. The Home Secretary has undoubtedly arrogated to himself huge powers in the Bill. As it stood, the clause allowing the chief officer to be appointed directly by the Home Secretary was just another in a long line of powers that the Home Secretary was taking to himself in the Bill.
The overall power remains. The Government made a last-minute concession after the proposals were severely mauled in another place, and it is possible that it might be a way out of the problem that the Government have set for themselves. The Home Secretary has acknowledged in the House on a previous occasion that there is a tension.
We recognise that the Home Secretary has given assurances about the lines of accountability. We welcome the fact that the Government have been forced to make a concession and that they have agreed to address the concerns raised by Baroness Blatch and other Conservative peers in another place.
4 pm
We also welcome the fact that at least this section of the Bill has been allowed a further debate in national guillotine week--a week in which proper debates have been rare. For example, earlier this week, when we were considering a major piece of legislation, only two groups of amendments out of the nine listed were debated at all, and many matters on which we wished to divide the House were never even reached.
Although we feel that the Government have been right to make some concessions, concerns remain. Some of my right hon. and hon. Friends may take the opportunity of this debate to raise their continuing concerns about the powers of the Home Secretary.
Mr. Simon Hughes (Southwark, North and Bermondsey): The amendment that has come back to us is not what my colleagues and I wanted. We supported the position of the Lords on the previous round, when they insisted that the chief probation officer should be appointed by the board and then
approved by the Secretary of State, rather than the other way round. Just for the record, the matter went back to the Lords once the Government had reversed their decision last time. The Government were nearly defeated again in a vote--their majority was only 12 earlier this week when the Bill was back at the other end of the building.This is still a hotly contested matter. As the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins) made it clear, it relates to the question whether we have more central or more devolved control. I shall not rehearse the arguments of my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Jackie Ballard) in our previous debate in this place. However, when she put the case for more local control and the Secretary of State started to put the contrary case, he soon became aware that his case was not borne out by the facts, which he was good enough to admit.
There are no universal parallels--such people are not always appointed centrally. Chairs of school governors, head teachers, chairs of governing bodies of colleges, chancellors of universities, chief executives of health authorities--a particularly good parallel example--and of health trusts are all appointed locally. There is a process, of course, and the appointments depend on what system applies. However, there is no universal rule.
We preferred the alternative proposal. However, we had to decide whether to go up and down the Corridor for another 24 hours or whether to accept an amendment that is a compromise--albeit a compromise in the right direction--and, if so, whether to amend it further. This amendment is better than nothing, but it is only a compromise position. It does two things: it provides for a selection panel process and for board representation in the selection process by the Secretary of State.
We have had a big general debate this parliamentary year about the future of the probation and prison services, and the interlinking inspectorates of both. However, we have not seen established the sort of continuous review process that would be beneficial to politicians and to professionals, would depoliticise these issues slightly and would regularly allow a proper appraisal of the good functioning of the services. I have argued before for a standing conference on the police so that there could be regular appraisal of what we need to do to reform the police service. My colleagues and I strongly believe that that would be very appropriate at present in relation to the prison and probation services.
I have one other timetabling comment. It is a sign of the year that we have had that on what is--or may be--the last day of the parliamentary year, we are considering the third Home Office Bill to have come to the House this day. This week, we have dealt with five Home Office Bills, some of which are still to complete all their stages. We had the Freedom of Information Bill on Monday; the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Bill yesterday; the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Bill; the Disqualifications Bill; and now we are debating the Criminal Justice and Court Services Bill.
I am not against legislation when it is necessary. I am not even against having 12 Home Office Bills in a year, if necessary. However, like the Minister, I will not be unhappy if the Queen's Speech contains a smaller number. If, as the press reports say, we get no more
than six, we will be pleased. If the Government manage to consolidate the six into three--which looks as though it might be possible--we would be even happier, as would Parliament.I repeat that I am not against legislation where it is necessary, but we should learn the lesson that it is not good to legislate on the hoof. I share the view of the hon. Member for Surrey Heath that although today, as it happens, we do not have a guillotine on this Bill, we had a guillotine on the Disqualifications Bill. We had a severe guillotine on the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Bill yesterday and another severe guillotine on the Freedom of Information Bill on Monday. Even if we discount extended contributions--not necessarily all central to the point, although all in order--we must, as a Parliament, be able to do our job better than we can by preventing discussion of many matters and rushing discussion of a load of legislation through at the end of the parliamentary year.
We shall not object further. Given that the amendment is a compromise rather than an absolute refusal, we are prepared to accept it, although it would certainly not be our first option.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |