| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. I gave the example of a chief probation officer being unhappy about a line of policy agreed in Whitehall, going to his board and finding that his or her board is of the same mind by dint of local circumstances. Does the Minister say that in that case the Home Secretary would issue a direction requiring unanimity of view on that board to be reversed? If that is so, what effect does he think that would have on that board?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for making that important point. There
will not be a problem. The chief officer will advise the Secretary of State of the conflict. The Secretary of State will then issue a direction to the whole board, ensuring that the line of accountability is maintained, that the chief officer can act from a position of strength and that the chief officer can act with the full knowledge that he or she is acting in accordance with nationally directed policy. That is what we seek to achieve in this exercise. That makes the position plain and clear.That brings me to a point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch. She said that there should be a clear duty to the local community. There will be duties to the local community. But in putting the point in that way the noble Baroness is confusing the nature of a local service. It is not like a local authority where there are clear duties through the locally-elected councillors. Probation boards are not of that ilk. They are not that kind of local organisation. With the creation of a new national probation service they will be part of a national service. Their duty to a local community must surely be to ensure that there is effective public protection. That is the primary purpose in this exercise.
I have described a clear, no nonsense, under- standable transparent system of linear accountability to a national organisation. If noble Lords opposite insist on their approach, they will be driving a wedge into the general thrust of the reforms that we propose. I believe that noble Lords fully understand that. The matter has been debated in your Lordships' House. More importantly, it has been determined in another place, not once but twice, and with very clear majorities. Another place is very clear about the Government's policy; and the Government are very clear about their policy objectives. It would be wrong. It would undermine the general direction of our policy towards the creation of a new Probation Service if your Lordships' House were to insist on amendments which were carried on Report. I urge your Lordships' House to think long and hard before disagreeing with the general thrust of the Government's reforms and with another place. That is the Government's position.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, perhaps I may ask him a question. The noble Lord said that the boards will be bodies corporate; that chief officers will be public office holders and that they will not have operational autonomy in the way that a chief police officer has. In the light of those answers and in the light of what I said earlier, a public office holder implies autonomy--for example, the charity commissioner or the data protection registrar. Neither of those public office holders are subject to the direction of any Secretary of State. Therefore, how can these be bodies corporate and public office holders and be different from public office holders and public bodies as we know them?
5 p.m.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, the short answer is that we have decided how we wish to have the
system and line of accountability in creating an entirely different and specific national service. The members will have a degree of autonomy as they will be members of a board. But they will ultimately be subject to the constraints of a national service. The noble Baroness shakes her head, but that is how we see the new service developing. That is exactly what we wish to see develop. The noble Baroness clearly takes a different view. I am very surprised by the view that she takes, because when she was a Minister and held responsibilities not completely dissimilar to the ones that I hold, on a number of occasions she expressed frustration at the way in which the Probation Service was developing.We believe that the reforms are very important. The amendment would strike not just at the heart of what we are trying to achieve but at the certainty we need to achieve that objective.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, it is not me who has a different view and has changed my mind; it is the Minister. In answer to the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, he said that in the event of any tension the Home Secretary would override not just the chief officer but the whole board. Yet he has just said in answer to my question that the chief officer would have autonomy. He cannot have both.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I made it clear that there is a degree of autonomy. But I made an important point to the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, when describing the relationship that ultimately would have to pertain and ultimately would have to reside; a situation where, yes, when push comes to shove, the Secretary of State will be able to issue directions to the local board.
Lord Warner: My Lords, before my noble friend sits down, perhaps I may help him to clarify the position for the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch. If we go along the route that she suggests, national standards might not be enforced in particular parts of the country and local boards might choose to ignore a national direction on the national standards regarding, for example, breaches of orders made by the courts.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, that is precisely the point. We are seeking for those very reasons to create a national service. We do not want widespread regional variations. We want national consistency with national standards. Noble Lords opposite are seeking to undermine that important principle.
Lord Dholakia: My Lords, there is confusion here. Does the noble Lord agree that under the Bill the Secretary of State will have power to get rid of the board if it does not follow a direction from the national service? The answer is "yes".
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I am sure that the answer is yes, but that is not the point. The chief officer has day-to-day organisational responsibility for that part of the Probation Service. The chief officer
is in an important position of responsibility in managing the day-to-day affairs of the local probation service.
Lord Carter: My Lords, we may have reached the point where it would be helpful if I gave the House some procedural advice. I am not entering into the debate on the merits of the various amendments. The only way in which the House can have a vote, which is what I think it wants to do, is to vote on Amendment No. 121C. No Motions have been tabled to any of the other amendments before the House. There is always confusion over Commons amendments. There is only one way in which the House can have a vote--I see that the noble Lord, Lord Elton, is nodding. Notice has been given by the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, to insist on Amendment No. 121. The House can do that by voting for Amendment No. 121C, although I hope that the majority of the House will vote against it. No notice has been given of opposition to Amendment No. 39. Therefore, the decision on Amendment No. 39 is not procedurally binding on Amendment No. 121. Therefore, the only amendment on which there can be a vote is Amendment No. 121C.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 41 to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason numbered 41A.
Moved, That the House do not insist on their Amendment No, 41 to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason numbered 41A.--(Lord Bassam of Brighton.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do not insist on their Amendments Nos. 42 and 43 to which the Commons have disagreed for their reasons numbered 42A and 43A.
Moved, That the House do not insist on their Amendments Nos. 42 and 43 to which the Commons have disagreed for their reasons numbered 42A and 43A.--(Lord Bassam of Brighton.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
LORDS AMENDMENT
41Clause 18, page 8, line 37, leave out paragraph (b)
The Commons disagreed to this amendment for the following reason--
41ABecause the Commons believe that it is not appropriate for local probation boards to hold land.
LORDS AMENDMENT
42Clause 19, page 9, line 3, leave out ("Service") and insert ("new employer")
The Commons disagreed to this amendment for the following reason--
42ABecause the Commons believe that it is not appropriate for local probation boards to hold land.
LORDS AMENDMENT
43Clause 19, page 9, line 7, leave out ("Service") and insert ("new employer")
The Commons disagreed to this amendment for the following reason--
43ABecause the Commons believe that it is not appropriate for local probation boards to hold land.
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page