Criminal Justice Bill [back to previous text]

Stephen Hesford (Wirral, West): No matter how sympathetic the Committee might be, the hon. Gentleman is pointing up one of my concerns. There is no corresponding duty on any of the other bodies to take part. No matter how hard the probation service might try, if there is no duty on the other agencies it Column Number: 1204 might not work. The other concern is that there is no audit process. There is no duty on the probation service to tell anybody how well it is doing, so we shall never know. Simon Hughes: Again, I hope that we can feel our way to consensus. I have only two more substantive points to make, and they are going in the hon. Gentleman's direction. I am concerned about why the intention of the new clause should be for the obligation to be on the probation service. It does not strike me as obvious that the probation service should have the lead responsibility. If we think widely about the five prospective parties to the consultation, it might be more logical for another to take the lead. I hold no brief against or in favour of the probation service, but it might be better for the local authority, or another body, to do it. The second point is exactly that made by the hon. Member for Wirral, West (Stephen Hesford). This is a reasonable probing new clause. It puts a duty on the probation service to establish an arrangement. However, it places a burden on it that it is not resourced to carry—it is terribly overstretched—in asking it to consult the community. A process might already be set up—if there is a process under the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, let us not duplicate it; if there is a way in which the police, the local authority and the community work together, let us not add another. There ought, in any event, to be an obligation on all the parties to participate. It would be unfair to put a duty on the probation service and, possibly, on the magistrates court committee, and to give a nebulous, unspecified role to the local community, but to place no duty on the police or the courts—other than magistrates—or on the Prison Service, if it is involved. I am keen to find something that works without being heavily bureaucratic. We need something that can work easily, not a huge bureaucracy. To put it visually, twice or three times a year, there should be at the top table at a public meeting, whether it is on the Wirral or in south London, the five people in charge of delivering the service. That way, members of the public would never ask why people are not getting tougher sentences without somebody being there to explain what the sentences are and to give accurate information. That is really important, otherwise—I have seen this, and so, no doubt, has the hon. Member for Wirral, West—there is a danger of terrible buck passing. It already happens too often. I have been at too many meetings at which members of the community meet police representatives who say, ''We cannot answer that—talk to the courts,'' while in fact the courts are not there to talk to. Mrs. Joan Humble (Blackpool, North and Fleetwood): In his interesting comments, the hon. Gentleman has highlighted the groups and organisations that we think should be involved in the consultation process. There are others. There are drug action teams, primary care trusts—because the probation service deals with people with health problems and abuse problems—and youth action teams. Does he agree that, rather than considering the matter from the point of view of which agencies and organisations should be consulted, a key issue is Column Number: 1205 that ordinary people should know what is going on? Information should get to them, rather than being shared and, essentially, kept secret by well-meaning, interested people from different agencies. Simon Hughes: I absolutely agree, but, to be fair, the hon. Member for Nottingham, North has separated the process of getting people together from that of sharing information. I understand why he has done so, and the next new clause is about ensuring that the public are told. However, the hon. Lady is absolutely right that it is no good having a behind-closed-doors consultation in which the public cannot participate. That is why the initial picture that I have painted includes the opportunity for the public to ask questions of those who run the system. To pick up the hon. Lady's important second point about other agencies, she is absolutely right that without adequate drug services—in her area or mine—questions to the police and courts about why they do not deal more effectively with drug dealers will not be adequately answered. No one will be there to answer them, although there will be second-hand information. I selected the agencies that I did—the hon. Lady may persuade me that I am wrong and that she is right; I do not have a final view—only because they are responsible for delivering law, order and punishment. However, they need to link up with the people whom she mentioned—those responsible for youth action teams, youth offender programmes and healthcare, including drug services, in particular. Were we able to deliberate further and get the measure right before the end of the Bill's passage through Parliament, we might be able to list those other obvious partners on whom we could agree. The danger is that the list would be as long as your arm; it would be like a monster, and it might be difficult to get all those people together at stage 1. I want us to get things right, and it is no good going off at half-cock and getting things wrong. I have one last point, and the hon. Lady or others may want to comment. As the hon. Lady suggested, there is a terrible danger nowadays that the many well-intentioned, intelligent and good people who do good and important jobs will spend more and more time in committee meetings with one another. I do not know whether Fleetwood and Blackpool are the same as Southwark and south London, but wherever I go in the country, it appears that specialists are spending more and more time talking to other specialists. That happens in a rather unaccountable, undemocratic way in forums and other partnerships whose work does not feed into local authorities or other elected bodies. My preference, as always, is that the local authority should act as the umbrella. The public should be encouraged to go to groups of people whom they can elect and remove to make them answer questions. Those people may say, ''We have no responsibility for the courts—they're run by a manager for our borough. Here they are: ask them the questions.'' Councillors and MPs may then say, ''You're not giving us a very good answer; it's inadequate—go away and get more information.'' I am trying to achieve something that is manageable and which includes everyone. The suggestion is that we try—at least in phase 1—to Column Number: 1206 include the agencies that deal with criminal justice delivery. I have one final point. If the opinion polls show that law and order is one of the top three concerns among our constituents nationally, it is no good just including the police. We need the people who deal with prisons, probation—punishment in the community—the courts, and law and order. That is why the germ—or the early growth—of an idea before us is a good one, and I hope that the hon. Member for Nottingham, North will be positive about collaborating with our Conservative colleagues and others to achieve something workable that could be included in the Bill before the end of its passage through Parliament. Hilary Benn: My hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, North has highlighted an important issue. He has given the Committee an opportunity to range across the mechanisms that are in place to achieve his objective, which I share, even if I am not persuaded that the mechanism that he proposes in the new clause would necessarily assist. First, I know that there was some concern that with the demise of the statutory probation liaison committees following the introduction of the Criminal Justice and Court Services Act 2000 the kind of consultation and communication that my hon. Friend proposes in the new clause would be lost. However, I can assure him that joint working continues to be a priority for the National Probation Service. Indeed, it was made clear in the guidance issued last year by the probation service, the Lord Chancellor's Department, the Magistrates Association, the Justices' Clerks' Society, and the Association of Justices' Chief Executives and entitled, ''Working Together—the National Probation Service and the Courts''. I have a copy of it here. 3.30 pm The guidance sets out extremely clearly the importance that all the parties attach to effective communication and understanding of their respective roles and the importance of their working together to achieve their shared ends. Indeed, it suggests that something like the old probation liaison committees could provide a forum to review working jointly and to plan future events. Clearly the purpose of all that activity should be to achieve improvements in the criminal justice system. The probation service has itself developed closer links with the local community. Since the establishment of the National Probation Service there have been the new local probation boards, which have a much more diverse membership than was previously the case. They are accountable for delivering the service locally. They have to produce an annual report. They have between five and 15 members, including a Crown court judge, a chief probation officer, four magistrates, two local councillors and others who could be lawyers or representatives of the business community or the wider local community. That is another forum in which the kind of dialogue that my hon. Friend wants could take place. I entirely accept that in general the public do not know enough about the work of the Column Number: 1207 local probation services and I am keen that they should. They would be greatly reassured by what they would learn. I acknowledge the point made by the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes) about the crime and disorder reduction partnerships, which bring in the local dimension in co-operation with others. I remind the Committee that the new local criminal justice boards bring together the CPS, the courts, the Prison Service, the probation service, the police, the magistrates and the youth offending teams to encourage joint working in the interests of improving the operation of the criminal justice system. They will produce annual reports, and the range of issues that they will deal with covers all the points that the hon. Gentleman rightly raised. I hope that my hon. Friend will be reassured that a range of mechanisms is already in place. I am not persuaded that we need to add to those. The underlying thrust of the new clause is that there should be more effective consultation and communication, and we all share that.

©Parliamentary copyright 2003	Prepared 27 February 2003