| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Lord King of Bridgwater: My Lords, my understanding is that the Government have accepted Sir Michael Bichard's recommendations and now intend to legislate to put them into effect. That will take some considerable time in some respects, as my noble friend indicated. Will the noble Lord give an undertaking, in so far as it lies within the power of Ministers by executive action to follow the spirit of
12 Jan 2006 : Column 352
Sir Michael Bichard's recommendations, to put them into effect immediately and not wait for legislation before proceeding?
Lord Adonis: My Lords, I can, indeed, give the noble Lord that undertaking. Part of the reason that we have asked for this urgent review is to allow the Secretary of State to make further changes in response to such a review in advance of the changes that will be brought about by legislation.
The reason that it is taking time to set up a new vetting system is that the IT systems involved are very complex. The systems will allow for continuous updating of the list of those who are barred by all police authorities in the country. That requires a very complex system and the proper procurement process for that will mean that it will not be available before 2007 and in full operation until 2008. That was agreed with Sir Michael.
Lord Clinton-Davis: Does my noble friend agree that of course there is a real problem here, but equally is it not right that that problem should be examined in depth? He has outlined that today. Rather than come to hasty decisions, there is a strong case for review. Would not the noble Baroness be among the first to complain if rash decisions were taken about this most important matter? Is there not only a duty for teachers to report on any aberrant behaviour, but a duty to avoid witch hunts at all costs?
Lord Adonis: My Lords, I agree fully with my noble friend, not only about the importance both of constant vigilance on the part of all those who work in schools about aberrant behaviour that could legitimately give rise to concern, but about the importance of avoiding witch hunts. I should stress that these issues are very complex. It is not a simple and straightforward matter, as some appear to believe—that one could easily duplicate the sex offenders register and put it on the updated Bichard register that will succeed List 99.
The decisions taken by the Department for Education and Skills at the moment on inclusion in List 99 include judgments that go beyond those factors which put individuals on the sex offenders register. That is appropriate, because the issue is not simply about an individual having a conviction or a caution for an offence which is relevant but whether there is other material information about their behaviour towards children that has come to the attention of the public authorities which could lead the Secretary of State to believe that they are not a fit and proper person to work in a school. It is absolutely correct that a Minister may have to make that judgment, but in many cases goes beyond the information that is available on the sex offenders register.
Lord Northbourne: My Lords, I apologise to the House for not having had the advantage of reading Sir Michael Bichard's report. Of course, I entirely agree with all previous speakers that it essential to have an effective and rigorous system of identifying teachers who may be a danger to children.
12 Jan 2006 : Column 353
However, perhaps I may put the matter in perspective and make a point that is relevant to the desirability of having the best possible system for identifying offenders. Unless you can give non-offenders, particularly male teachers, more confidence that they are not going to be the object of false accusations, we are going to move from bad to worse, from the present position where I think I am right to say that less than a third of teachers are male. Many men are being discouraged from entering the profession because of the fear of losing their careers and their reputation as a result of an accusation of sexual abuse.
Lord Adonis: My Lords, we have made it clear to schools and governing bodies that where allegations are made of the kind mentioned by the noble Lord, preliminary steps should be taken to ascertain their veracity very quickly so that false allegations can be rooted out without the effects that the noble Lord mentioned.
National Offender Management Service
2.36 pm
Baroness Gibson of Market Rasen rose to call attention to the impact of the National Offender Management Service on the Criminal Justice System; and to move for Papers.
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I am very pleased to have instigated this debate at an important stage of discussions on the National Offender Management Service, otherwise known as NOMS. My main purpose is to air some of the more controversial issues that surround NOMS from the point of view of those who work within the criminal justice system, and in particular the views of the probation service, which will be greatly affected by the proposed changes. Other speakers far more experienced in this area than I will raise other matters.
The debate about the introduction of NOMS has been long and changing. The report by the noble Lord, Lord Carter of Coles, produced in January 2004, proposed the establishment of NOMS. The aim was to bring the prison and probation services together under a single chief executive and to establish end-to-end offender management. The Government immediately produced their response, Reducing Crime—Changing Lives. Their proclaimed aims were to reduce re-offending by enhanced supervision of offenders, closer working between the prisons and probation services and a rebuilding of sentencing. Many would support those aims, but would not support the way that they have evolved since January 2004 and the confusion and lack of co-ordinated planning surrounding the establishment of NOMS.
The lack of overall planning was highlighted from the start of the debate in 2004, when the appointments of 10 regional offender managers, known as ROMs, were made. Those appointments took place despite the fact that there were no job descriptions for those managers and a mounting uncertainty about their role,
12 Jan 2006 : Column 354
what they were aiming to achieve or how NOMS would operate overall. Increasingly, those working in the probation and prison services raised many questions on these and other issues, but received no satisfactory answers. Then in May 2005 came the general election and yet more proposals for change.
The Labour Party manifesto committed the Government,
"to ensure that every offender is individually case-managed from beginning to end of their sentence, both in and out of custody",
"voluntary organisations and the private sector . . . greater opportunities to deliver offender services".
In October 2005, the Government produced a consultation paper entitled, Restructuring Probation to Reduce Re-offending, which put meat on the bones of the manifesto commitment. At this stage, I must ask why we are changing the probation service yet again. After all, the current National Probation Service and its directorate only came into being in 2001 following a high-quality debate in which all parties involved in the criminal justice system took part. Most bodies, including the unions representing those who work in the system, welcome the 2001 changes. They believe that the changes provided the service, for the first time, with a national voice and a clear focus, as well as maintaining local accountability through the establishment of 42 regional probation boards.
Those boards have brought a broad range of skills and experience to their work because they are part of the local community and of statutory services. They represent a wide and diverse conception of the local population and have an in-depth knowledge of the locality. Now, only five years later, such boards are to be abolished, which means the loss of all that local expertise. The regional probation boards are to be replaced by new bodies to be called probation trusts, which will focus on the business aspect of probation rather than the public service aspect. They will be contractor-only bodies and they will be expected to compete for work with the voluntary and private sectors. The powers to decide which local services should be commissioned will be handed over, I understand, to the regionally based ROMs via the Home Secretary. So the local groups established under the boards will be torn away from the local community.
In November last year, the Home Secretary spoke to the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Penal Affairs, of which I am a member. He was open and frank with us, which was greatly appreciated. He explained that the central focus of the criminal justice system should be on preventing individuals re-offending. He said that what is needed is a clarity and coherence that has been missing so far. No one could object to such plans and I do not, but I do object to the piecemeal approach, which gives me no confidence that his aims will materialise.
I believe that probation service workers should be prized by us all. They are professional people with invaluable expertise in, and knowledge of, their local areas. We as a society rely on them to work with
12 Jan 2006 : Column 355
offenders to identify what each offender needs to rehabilitate him or her and reduce the chance of their re-offending. Since 2001, they have increased their expertise and enjoyed the increase in resources and support provided by the Government. They do not understand why they should face another period of change, and nor do many of us. But we know that they will have to do so when we examine what the new concept of contestability really means for the probation service.
Contestability was first mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Carter, in his 2004 report. However, it was not at the centre of his proposals; it is the Government who have placed it there. Contestability means that the probation service will be split into two sections: one to deal with providers and the other to deal with purchasers.
The Government insist on the term "contestability" but I, as an old-fashioned trade unionist and a former trade union official, prefer to describe it as "privatisation", or at least in large part privatisation. This is not even privatisation by the back door—in these proposals, the front door is wide open for the privatisation process. I am sure that I will be told that it is the definition of contestability that is all-important and that I am defining it incorrectly. I do not need a teach-in about contestability. I know what this contestability means, and probation officers and their managers know what it means. Contestability means that the probation service, which is and always has been a public service, will be opened up to competition. There are no limits or principles to contestability, and the inclusion of the voluntary and not-for-profit sectors does not remove the main threat: private business is becoming involved in a major public service in a muddled and badly thought-out way.
A worrying factor is that there has been no analysis of the way in which the changes introduced in 2001 have worked. The system is not being changed because it has been found wanting; rather, we are being asked to support untested and untried proposals and we do not know why.
One complaint about the system over the years is that it has been fragmented and departmentalised. The changes of 2001 were aimed at overcoming that and the probation service believes that they are working. The service has no faith in the new proposals, and both the probation boards and the probation officers—in other words, managers and staff—believe them to be unnecessary. Surely the voices of those working in the system should be listened to. Last November, the Home Secretary acknowledged that if the proposed changes were to lead to a more disjointed approach to an individual offender, that would be a total failure.
I believe that the Home Secretary's commitment is genuine, but morale in the probation service is low. Workers are bewildered and fearful. They do not know what is expected of them and, worse still, after all the chopping and changing and contradictory proposals, they do not believe that the Government do either.
12 Jan 2006 : Column 356
The unions involved in the system do not consider that the business case for NOMS has been made. As the Home Secretary, when questioned in November, told us that the business case for NOMS is expected to be published only after the parliamentary timetable is known, they appear to be right. Not only do they fear that the multiplicity of independent contractors will cause confusion and place a wedge between the organisations which are already working well together, they also believe that this will create a position where "responsibility" cannot be pinpointed.
It must be recognised that skills which probation officers have developed over the years cannot be learnt overnight, no matter how keen or well intentioned the voluntary sector or charity worker may be. Their local knowledge and skills have been built up painstakingly. A trusting one-to-one relationship between probation officer and offender is vital. If re-offending is to be truly tackled, that is necessary for the future. Supervision of offenders is not, and should not become, a business. It should remain in the public service in support of, and accountable to, our citizens.
Privatisation of other parts of the criminal justice system cannot be said to have been a huge success. A report by the think tank, Catalyst, published 18 months ago, showed that high levels of labour turnover were a serious problem in many private prisons. Overall, turnover of prison officers is 25 per cent per year in private prisons—10 times greater than the turnover in state prisons. If that trend is translated to the probation service, it does not bode well.
In addition, there is concern among probation staff about the timing of these proposals when probation is performing so well. November 2004 figures show that "breach" targets were achieved in 87 per cent of cases, offender behaviour programmes were completed in 91 per cent of targeted cases, and eight out of 10 of those under supervision were still in contact with their probation officers after six months of supervision. Those statistics show a system that is succeeding, not failing. Why change it?
There is a further important factor relating to staff, which should not be dismissed lightly. Most staff joined the probation service because they wanted to work in a public service. A strong public service ethos exists. Enforced transfer to the voluntary or private sector does not appeal to many. I can understand that, as before I came to your Lordships' House many years ago, I used to work for the TUC. I chose to work for the TUC. Enforced transfer from the TUC to the CBI would not have been appreciated. I firmly believe that unless those working in the system accept and understand the reasoning behind the changes proposed, they are unlikely to succeed. It is obvious that both managers and staff are not persuaded.
I have tremendous respect and admiration for my noble friend. She is a listening Minister. I ask her to reconsider the route that is being taken, particularly in light of the views of those working in the service. They believe that much of what the Government want can be achieved by expanding and building on the current system. Please listen to their professional views.
12 Jan 2006 : Column 357
Finally, I am led to believe that there have been approximately 750 responses to the Government's latest consultation document, and that only about 10 support the proposals. Can my noble friend clarify the position?
2.51 pm
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |