New
Clause
3
Standards
‘(1)
The Secretary of State shall by regulation, make provision for
standards to be achieved by every provider of probation
services.
(2) The standards to
be achieved as prescribed by such regulations shall include standards
concerning the provision of reports to courts and to the Parole
Board.
(3) The regulations
provided in subsection (1) above shall require financial penalties to
be paid by any provider of probation services who, in the opinion of
the Secretary of State, fails to meet the standards prescribed by the
regulations.’.—[Mr.
Garnier.]
Brought
up, and read the First
time.
Mr.
Garnier:
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second
time.
Proposed subsections (1) to (3)
fall to be discussed together; I shall come in a moment to subsection
(2). It seems to me to be logical that, just as the Secretary of State
currently makes sure by regulation and various other arrangements that
the probation service hits certain targets, meets certain standards and
employs people of sufficient calibre and qualifications, he should also
ensure that the new providers of probation services comply with those
standards. There should not be one set of regulations or standards that
applies to the probation service and its employees, and different sets
of standards that apply to third sector or private providers.
It seems to me that such an
approach would be fair and provide clarity, as well as the necessary
public confidence that, if we are to have non-state providers of
probation services, they comply with proper standards. This is a matter
of some practical importance because the number of providers of
probation services could well be enormous. A number of small charities
already help out with the resettlement of offenders, and a number of
small groups that go into prisons and help with learning and reading
skills. There are also a number of individuals who make themselves
available to assist in what I would loosely call probation work, albeit
that they are not official probation service employees or
officers.
Equally, if
we are going to look at the supervisionof community punishment
offenders by private companies, individuals or charitable groups, the
public must be assured that those involved are acquainted with the law
and will ensure that the individuals in their care and in their charge
will behave properly, turn up on time, do the work that they are
required to do to a sufficient standard and not disappear before the
time set by the court for the scheme that they are
on.
My concern in that
respect was increased in earlier sittings when the Minister was not
sure whether the standards that might be found in the contracts made
between the regional offender manager, the probation trust or the
Secretary of State and the third party or private provider would be the
same as the standards set by the Bill when it was enacted. I gently
chided him for suggesting that there might be any confusion between the
statutory and contractual terms, which should be
identical.
That point
is allied to the issue raised in proposed subsection (3). What will
happen if private providers—especially the large plcs, which
have the money and want to make a profit—fall below the
standards that the public expect of them? Surely penalty clauses should
be built in. If a private provider falls down in its work, the
Secretary of State, through the probation trust, will have to find
someone else to do it, and there is no reason why the taxpayer should
suffer a loss as a consequence of the incompetence or inadequacy
ofa probation provider. That matter requires careful thought,
and I appreciate that the new clause does not set out the model
regulation or standards that need to be followed. None the less, the
principle behind proposed subsections (1) and (3) is clear and
self-explanatory.
Proposed
subsection (2) relates to court reporting—not journalism, but
the provision of reports for the court so that it can apply the proper
sentence to the case and the defendant. At present, in a magistrates
court or a Crown court, when a defendant has been found guilty, the
court will often order a pre-sentence report, which usually takes about
three weeks to prepare. In central London, three weeks is about the
minimum time that it takes for a probation officer to prepare a
pre-sentence report. If the case is more complicated and requires the
consideration of the defendant’s mental state, it can take
longer to produce the report because the advice of medical and mental
health practitioners has to be sought. By and large, the probation
service provides the magistrate or Crown court judge with a set of
recommendations based on the assessment of the officer who has made the
report of the facts of the case, and the matters relating to the
defendant and his history, in its widest sense. There is no question of
the probation officer who makes the report having any personal interest
in the sentence. The pre-sentence report may state that there is no
option other than custody for a particular offender and his offence,
given his history and the damage he has caused the victim.
The probation officer may
report that several community punishments are available and would be
suitable, and he might recommend various activities that should be
attached to the sentence. It is my experience that if more than two or
three activities are added to the community punishment the
sentenceloses its value. The defendant’s mind needs to
be concentrated on doing one, two or three things well rather than on
doing half a dozen things inadequately. Many community sentence
defendants are not the brightest and they are not very good at
timekeeping. If they are loaded up with all sorts of requirements, they
will simply fall down and the sentence will have no effect. The
expertise of a probation officer is needed to provide guidance on that,
and he or she will also say what options suitable to a defendant are
available in the area of a court or where he lives. The probation
officer has no personal or commercial interest in the
outcome.
12
noon
We may be
about to move into a set-up wherein private probation services supply
court reports. If we are not careful the consequence, witting or
unwitting, may well be that a private provider suggests to a sentencing
court that a service that his company provides would be the best
sentence or disposal of the case. Contractual terms or regulations
should be crafted to make it impossible for a private provider to skew
his advice so as to benefit his company commercially. That strikes me
as sensible and uncontroversial. The Government should welcome it, and
I am sure that they
will.
Mr.
Sutcliffe:
I am grateful to the hon. and learned Gentleman
for proposing the new clause, which provides an opportunity to debate
the crucial matter of standards under the arrangements set out in the
Bill.
Proposed
subsections (1) and (2) would require the Secretary of State to set out
in regulations the standards to be achieved by providers of probation
services, particularly but not only in relation to the provision of
reports to courts and the Parole Board. The new clause would also
require regulations to provide for the imposition of financial
penalties on providers who fail to meet the standards.
Of course I understand the
concerns behind the new clause. We agree fully on the need for
standards to apply to providers and for penalties to apply if standards
are not met, but we do not believe that the legislative approach is not
the right way to go about it. The overall priorities for the delivery
of probation services will be set out each year in a published national
commissioning framework. The national prioritiesin the
framework will underpin the regional commissioning plans, which will
also be public documents. The priorities will be informed by the
consultation process that we discussed under clause
2.
In delivering the
priorities, providers will be required to meet national standards,
which are already in place and set out what we expect all providers to
achieve. They do not have legislative status, and that is right. They
are operationally focused and we need flexibility to amend them as
necessary. A requirement to meet the standards will be set out in
contracts and failure to meet them will incur penalties. The action to
be taken in the event of such a failure will vary according to its
seriousness and the reasons for it. Incentives and sanctions are being
designed and agreed and they will, in time, include financial
penalties. However, they are a matter for negotiations with
providers.
The hon.
and learned Gentleman’s concern about court reports has been
expressed previously. We believe that there will be no conflict of
interest for private companies writing pre-sentence reports, which will
be done under the strict guidelines that are already in place. If
concerns are raised or an anomaly is noted, they will be dealt with by
the regional offender manager. The awarding of a sentence will remain
entirely at the discretion of the
sentencer.
The hon.
and learned Gentleman went on to discuss how private providers of
probation services mightbe held accountable for their
performance. The requirement on private providers of correctional
services, as commissioned by NOMS, to report their performance will be
the same as the requirements on the public sector. Private sector
providers will report to regional and national commissioners in the
same way as public sector providers do and as existing private sector
prisons already do. We believe that the safeguards are in place and
that they should be contract related and in the guidelines. We
certainly believe that serious failures ought to incur penalties,
including financial ones. That is the right way to tackle the
issues.
Legislation,
even secondary legislation, is too inflexible; we cannot respond easily
to changing needs, for example, as identified in the annual
consultationor in negotiations between providers and the
commissioner. Legislation is also centralising—a criticism that
has been levelled at the Bill—and would stifle local flexibility
and, potentially, innovation. On that basis, I hope that the hon. and
learned Gentleman will agree to withdraw his new
clause.
Mr.
Garnier:
I am not entirely satisfied with whatthe
Minister said, because I am concerned about the conflict of interest. I
am not sure that he met that point. As he so frequently and
delightfully says, I will reflect on—indeed, take away and
reflect on—what
the Minister has said. He will see the results of my reflections in due
course. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the
motion.
Motion and
clause, by leave,
withdrawn.
New
Clause
4
Reoffending
targets
‘The Secretary of
State shall by direction at the start of every year and in respect of
every provider of probation services, set targets concerning the
reduction of offending or reoffending by those charged with or
convicted of offences, or those given conditional cautions in the area
in which the provider carries out its functions under this
Act.’.—[Mr.
Garnier.]
Brought
up, and read the First
time.
Mr.
Garnier:
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second
time.
The
Chairman:
With this it will be convenient to discuss
amendment (a) to the proposed new clause, at end
add—
‘(2) The Secretary of
State shall report annually to Parliament on the nature of these
targets and the progress made towards their
attainment.’.
Mr.
Garnier:
The new clause is designed to encourage the
Government to be more open about what they want the Bill to achieve in
relation to the providers of probation
services.
First, we
accept that the new clause might create an administrative burden for
the Government. If we move beyond one provider of probation services,
namely the probation service, to a regime in which probation services
are provided by a host of private companies—charities, Church
groups and so forth—the Secretary of State will be writing out a
lot of targets for a lot of people. None the less, the underlying
principle is
sound.
One of the
things to concern me and, I suspect, the wider public is the appalling
rate of reoffending among those who have been released from custody.
The reoffending rate for adult prisoners within two years of release is
67 per cent. or thereabouts and, for young offenders, is nearer 80 per
cent. That is a huge waste of public money. Housing each adult prisoner
per year costs £37,500 or thereabouts, and about £70,000
to house each young offender. If we put those people in custody and
they come out in exactly the same condition in terms of education, drug
addiction or social aptitude, and then they reoffend, we have wasted
the public’s money. I want to the Government to deal with that.
Prisons and young offender institutions are getting fuller and fuller,
but the reoffending rate is not decreasing. It is high time that the
Government set a target for themselves—let alone for anyone
else—on reducing the numbers of people who are offending and
reoffending and of people who are
cautioned.
One of the
points that the Council of Circuit Judges made to the Secretary of
State—about three or four weeks ago, I think—was that so
many youngsters nowadays are introduced to the criminal justice system
time after time, but without going to court and, as a consequence, the
fear factor of the punishment system within the criminal justice system
does not apply. The
deterrent value of the court system simply
existing,let alone sending youngsters to do community
punishments or into detention, has gone by the time many get to the
point of being sent into
custody. I think one
of the less bright Ministers—I cannot remember which one, which
is perhaps just as well—said that that was because judges are
unduly lenient and that if judges did their job properly and did what
Parliament required of them, they would bang those youngsters up much
earlier. Actually, judges do their very best to comply with the law as
Parliament directs them and that is why the prisons are overcrowded.
The present Government have required more people to be sent to prison
for longer. Surprise, surprise—more people are sent to prison
for longer. Surprise, surprise—prisoner numbers have gone up.
The only surprising thing—although I have given up being
surprised by it— is that the Government failed to anticipate the
consequence of their policy and failedto provide sufficient
places to put those additional prisoners
in.
Mr.
Sutcliffe:
I hear what the hon. and learned Gentleman says
but surely he accepts that, in line with the Criminal Justice Act 2003,
which provided for indeterminate sentences for dangerous prisoners who
pose a threat to the public, it is right that such people are held in
prison until they can prove that they do not pose such a threat. Does
he think, particularly with his experience, that at the lower end of
sentencing, people who would once have been fined are now being given a
community sentence, and that that ratcheting up has contributed to the
problem?
Mr.
Garnier:
I am glad my hon. Friend the Member for
Hornchurch is here because that is a point that he drew our during our
evidence session. The evidence from that session is now available to
the Committee and is on the table. The point that he made is that the
continuous low-level interface between youngsters and the criminal
justice system has not had the desired effect of deterring them from
crime, so by the time they get to a point where they have done
something that may require them to go inside, they have lost any fear
of the criminal justice system. If my hon. Friend wishes to intervene
on me to explain that point rather more eloquently, I would be happy to
give way to
him.
James
Brokenshire:
The point I made has been taken up by the
Council of Circuit Judges. Minor offending is the breeding
ground—the council’s words—for more serious
offending. As my hon. and learned Friend will agree, we need to be very
careful not to create a system that inures offenders to the criminal
justice system, such that when they arrive in prison or in custody or
they are given more serious sentences, it is much harder to reform and
rehabilitate them and therefore to stop them reoffending, especially if
that reoffending is of a more serious
nature.
Mr.
Garnier:
There is the answer to the Minister’s
question and I hope he will take that on board. I know that he will
have studied the evidence session that we had a couple of weeks
ago.
That suggests to
me that we need an intelligent approach to reoffending, but it is not
something to which the Government have applied their mind. They are
very good at passing Acts of Parliament and very
good at demanding longer and harsher sentences for this, that and the
other but what they are not so good at is reducing reoffending. That is
why it is important, given the opportunity of the Bill, that providers
of probation services should be set the task of explaining what it is
that they can do and the Secretary of State should tell them what he
expects them to do. If they are not prepared to meet our expectations
they should not be given the task. I do not think that is at all
controversial, but I notice that the hon. Member for Ceredigion wishes
to amend my otherwise entirely perfect new clause by suggesting the
Secretary of State should report annually to Parliament on the nature
of these targets and the progress made towards their attainment. Again,
the more we know about what the Secretary of State is doing the better.
I say that particularly about the present
one.
12.15
pm
Mark
Williams:
In the absence of my hon. Friend the Member for
Cheadle, I was tempted to withdraw the amendment. However, on the basis
of the kind remarks by the hon. and learned Member for Harborough, I
shall reaffirm briefly what we said earlier: inspiring public
confidence in the system will be a huge job. It manifestly does not
enjoy a great deal of public confidence now. On that basis, we see no
logical reason why an annual report should not be presented to
Parliament.
Mr.
Sutcliffe:
The new clause highlights a key aim of the
proposals on which we all agree—to reduce reoffending. The
Committee will know that the Home Office has set targets to reduce the
rate of reoffending by 5 per cent. by 2008 and 10 per cent. by 2010,
compared with the 2003 figures. We have always said that the targets
are ambitious and that the measures in the Bill are needed alongside
many others to meet them, and we have talked about ways of doing that
that involve the wider community. I do not think, however, that the
approach proposed in the new clause is the way in which to measure
success against the targets.
As the hon. and learned Member
for Harborough admitted, there are difficulties with holding individual
providers to account in respect of reoffending because more than one
provider of a custodial or probation service is involved in the
management of an individual offender. That is not a product of the
arrangements in the Bill—it occurs now and is one of the reasons
that Lord Carter said in his report that the commissioners, rather than
individual providers should be held to account for performance on
reoffending.
In fact,
responsibility extends beyond criminal justice agencies. Reducing
reoffending is a shared task and extends to agencies with
responsibilities for housing, training, benefits and so on, as we have
discussed. That is because the likelihood of reoffending has as much to
do with whether an offender has a home, job, training, benefits and so
on as it does with probation staff offender management and
intervention. It is difficult to see how we could allow for that in a
contract with an individual probation provider. Contractual targets
should be consistent and aligned with the Government’s plans for
reducing reoffending,
and not just targets to reduce reoffending per se.
We intend to agree targets with all probation service providers for
services that contribute to a reduction in reoffending. Amendment (a) to the new clause
states that the Secretary of State should report annually to Parliament
on progress towards those targets. I do not think that that is
necessary. We will continue to report overall progress, as we have been
doing for some years. It is not necessary to put that requirement in
statute. I understand the concerns of hon. Members, and hope that on
the basis of my explanation the hon. and learned Gentleman will
withdraw the
motion.
Mr.
Garnier:
This issue will not go away, but it will not be
resolved this morning. On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw
the motion.
Motion
and clause, by leave,
withdrawn.
| 
