PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES HOUSE OF COMMONS OFFICIAL REPORT GENERAL COMMITTEES

Public Bill Committee

OFFENDER REHABILITATION BILL [LORDS]

First Sitting Tuesday 26 November 2013 (Morning)

CONTENTS Programme motion agreed to. Written evidence (Reporting to the House) motion agreed to. CLAUSE 1 under consideration when the Committee adjourned till this day at Two o’clock.

PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY OF THE HOUSE OF COMMONS LONDON – THE STATIONERY OFFICE LIMITED £6·00 PBC (Bill 088) 2013 - 2014 Members who wish to have copies of the Official Report of Proceedings in General Committees sent to them are requested to give notice to that effect at the Vote Office.

No proofs can be supplied. Corrigenda slips may be published with Bound Volume editions. Corrigenda that Members suggest should be clearly marked in a copy of the report—not telephoned—and must be received in the Editor’s Room, House of Commons,

not later than

Saturday 30 November 2013

STRICT ADHERENCE TO THIS ARRANGEMENT WILL GREATLY FACILITATE THE PROMPT PUBLICATION OF THE BOUND VOLUMES OF PROCEEDINGS IN GENERAL COMMITTEES

© Parliamentary Copyright House of Commons 2013 This publication may be reproduced under the terms of the Open Parliament licence, which is published at www.parliament.uk/site-information/copyright/. 1 Public Bill Committee26 NOVEMBER 2013 Offender Rehabilitation Bill [Lords] 2

The Committee consisted of the following Members:

Chairs: NADINE DORRIES,†JOHN ROBERTSON

† Brine, Steve (Winchester) (Con) † Nokes, Caroline (Romsey and Southampton North) † Burt, Lorely (Solihull) (LD) (Con) † Champion, Sarah (Rotherham) (Lab) † Paisley, Ian (North Antrim) (DUP) † Chapman, Jenny (Darlington) (Lab) † Prisk, Mr Mark (Hertford and Stortford) (Con) † Cunningham, Alex (Stockton North) (Lab) † Scott, Mr Lee (Ilford North) (Con) † Evennett, Mr David (Lord Commissioner of Her † Slaughter, Mr Andy (Hammersmith) (Lab) Majesty’s Treasury) † Thornton, Mike (Eastleigh) (LD) (Kingston upon Hull East) † Goggins, Paul (Wythenshawe and Sale East) (Lab) † Turner, Karl (Lab) † Wright, Jeremy (Parliamentary Under-Secretary of † Harris, Rebecca (Castle Point) (Con) State for Justice) † Johnson, Gareth (Dartford) (Con) † Llwyd, Mr Elfyn (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC) David Slater, Kate Emms, Committee Clerks † Metcalfe, Stephen (South Basildon and East Thurrock) (Con) † attended the Committee 3 Public Bill CommitteeHOUSE OF COMMONS Offender Rehabilitation Bill [Lords] 4

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice Public Bill Committee (Jeremy Wright): I beg to move, That— Tuesday 26 November 2013 (1) the Committee shall (in addition to its first meeting at 8.55 am on Tuesday 26 November) meet— (a) at 2.00 pm on Tuesday 26 November; (Morning) (b) at 11.30 am and 2.00 pm on Thursday 28 November; (c) at 8.55 am and 2.00 pm on Tuesday 3 December; [JOHN ROBERTSON in the Chair] (2) the proceedings shall be taken in the following order: Clauses 1 to 3; Schedule 1; Clause 4; Schedule 2; Clauses 5 to 8; Offender Rehabilitation Bill [Lords] Schedule 3; Clauses 9 to 14; Schedule 4; Clause 15; Schedule 5; Clauses 16 to 19; Schedule 6; Clauses 20 and 21; Schedule 7; Clauses 22 to 24; new Clauses; new Schedules; remaining proceedings 8.55 am on the Bill; The Chair: Before we begin, I have a few preliminary (3) the proceedings shall (so far as not previously concluded) announcements. Members may, if they wish, remove be brought to a conclusion at 5.00 pm on Tuesday 3 December. their jackets in Committee sittings. I remind Members First, may I welcome you to the Chair, Mr Robertson? to switch off their phones or to put them on silent. I look forward to your wise guidance to us all in our As a general rule, my fellow Chair and I do not deliberations on the Bill. I also look forward to the intend to call starred amendments that have not been chairmanship of your co-Chair, Ms Dorries. I also tabled with adequate notice, which is three working welcome all members of the Committee. I know that we days for Public Bill Committees. Therefore, amendments will have a good and informed debate. I recognise that should be tabled by the rise of the House on Monday the Committee has a range of experience and for consideration on Thursday, and by the rise of the understanding, from which I am sure we will benefit as House on Thursday for consideration on Tuesday. the Committee progresses. Before we begin our line-by-line consideration of the I believe that the programme motion provides for Bill, some brief explanations may be useful for Members more than adequate time to scrutinise the Bill in detail. who are relatively new to Public Bill Committees. The As the Committee will readily appreciate, it provides for selection list for today’s sitting is available in the room. three days of debate over six sittings—today, this Thursday It shows the amendments that have been selected for and next Tuesday. As I hope is apparent from the debate and how they have been grouped. Those that motion, we propose to consider the Bill in order, with have been grouped are generally on the same or a schedules taken along with relevant clauses, as you have similar issue. explained, Mr Robertson. The Member who has put their name to the leading I hope that the Committee will be minded to approve amendment in a group will be called first. Other Members the programme motion and that we can proceed with are free to catch my eye to speak to all amendments in line-by-line consideration. the group. A Member may speak more than once in a single debate. At the end of the debate on a group of the amendments, Jenny Chapman (Darlington) (Lab): It is also a pleasure I will call the Member who moved the leading amendment for me to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Robertson, again. Before they sit down, they will need to indicate for, I think, the first time. It is good to be here with your whether they wish to seek to withdraw the amendment guidance. or to seek a Division. If a Member wishes to press any It is with some regret that we have agreed to three other amendment in the group to a vote, they will need days for the Bill. Although there is a huge amount of to let me know. agreement and not that much controversy with the Bill, I work on the assumption that the Government wish clause 1 is hugely contentious, as the Minister will have the Committee to reach a decision on all Government gathered from the debate on Second Reading. Not one amendments. Please note that decisions on amendments hon. Member referred to the rest of the Bill; every do not take place in the order they are debated, but in contribution was about clause 1, which was not inserted the order they appear on the amendment paper. by the Government, so we find ourselves in an unusual I will use my discretion on whether to allow a separate situation. We hope to be able to spend a great deal of stand part debate on individual clauses and schedules the time allocated to our consideration of the Bill on following the debates on the relevant amendments. In clause 1. other words, if we spend a long time on one group of amendments, I will allow it to veer into other areas of the clause, and there will be no stand part debate. Mr Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab): I am Someone may want to ask me whether I intend to allow sympathetic to both my hon. Friend and the Minister. If a stand part debate. the Government were to agree to clause 1 now, the The Committee will automatically adjourn at 11.25 am debate could be a lot shorter, and the Committee could this morning. This afternoon’s adjournment is in the be much more productive as well. hands of the Whips, but I will prompt them to let them know that it is conventional for it to be at round about 5 o’clock. Jenny Chapman: I thank my hon. Friend for that I hope that those explanations are helpful. helpful suggestion. 5 Public Bill Committee26 NOVEMBER 2013 Offender Rehabilitation Bill [Lords] 6

Jeremy Wright: I wonder whether the hon. Lady much as he can. There will be many questions proposed, agrees that we could shorten the Committee’s deliberations and I am sure he will do his level best to answer them, in exactly the same way by the Opposition agreeing to because the public demand that. take out clause 1?

Jenny Chapman: There is a disadvantage in the Minister’s The Chair: Before I call the Minister, a number of suggestion. We would not be able to do that, because we conversations were going on during the previous profoundly disagree with the removal of the clause. I do contribution. I do not like that. If you want to talk to not want to labour the point too much, because I want each other, please leave the room. to get on to debating the clause. We would have liked more time to discuss clause 1 and to go into the issues in Jeremy Wright: I am grateful for comments made by a lot more depth, but I will leave it there for now. members of the Committee. The hon. Member for Darlington is right that there is a broad measure of Paul Goggins (Wythenshawe and Sale East) (Lab): It agreement on a large part of the Bill. I certainly recognise is a pleasure to see you in the Chair and to serve under that there will be extensive debate on clause 1, but the your chairmanship, Mr Robertson. I rise not to challenge right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd is right the programme motion, but to seek the Minister’s assurance that there are important other parts of the Bill to on an important point. However long we take to debate consider. It is important to strike that balance. the clause, it is undeniable that we will deal with it first. Once we have moved beyond the clause and we are on In response to the right hon. Member for Wythenshawe to more detailed issues, I am mindful—I am sure the and Sale East, I will try to keep the Committee as whole Committee is mindful—that there are events updated as I can. He will recognise that there are limits taking place that are relevant to the Bill seemingly on a on the comments I am able to make about the particular daily basis at the moment. I am thinking particularly of companies he referred to, because of ongoing investigations. G4S admitting last week that it had overcharged the I will be hamstrung to some degree in what I am able to Ministry of Justice—the Minister will understand the say to the Committee and the way in which I am able to relevance—by £24 million, and offering to pay it back. respond to some amendments. I know that the right hon. Gentleman will recognise and appreciate that. On Friday, the Justice Secretary announced the decision not to award a contract for the South Yorkshire prisons I hope the Committee will support the programme to Serco, because of the delay associated with the motion and that we can get to the important work investigation, which rightly had been carried out by the described by hon. and right hon. Members. Government. Will the Minister assure us that if events Question put and agreed to. take place that are relevant to the Bill, whether in clause Resolved, 1 or any other part of the Bill, he will seek to inform the That, subject to the discretion of the Chair, any written evidence Committee as soon as possible? received by the Committee shall be reported to the House for publication.—(Jeremy Wright.) Mr Elfyn Llwyd (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC): It is a great pleasure to serve under your very able chairmanship, Mr Robertson—not for the first time in my case. Clause 1 I agree with the hon. Member for Darlington and the right hon. Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East about the gravity of the proceedings we are discussing PROBATION SERVICE REFORM:PARLIAMENTARY today. The clause is important; it was supported by APPROVAL people from all sides in the other place, reflecting the will of that House. Merely wiping it off the face of the Jenny Chapman: I beg to move amendment 51, in Bill seems to be not unconstitutional, but something clause 1, page 1, line 3, leave out that we should not proceed to do in this way. That ‘structure of the probation service’ would be a matter for the whole House to decide, not the Committee. and insert Other things in the Bill are of critical importance, not ‘responsbilities of, or Ministry of Justice contracts with, probation least the points mentioned about the shysters who will trusts.’. be involved if the Government have their way. There are risks in proceeding without any pilots; we are kicking a The Chair: With this it will be convenient to discuss ball into the air without any knowledge of where the the following: ball will land. That analogy is perhaps not serious New clause 1—Requirement to pilot before tendering enough, but there are risks being posed. We all know for probation services— from the Government’s internal risk assessment that we are treading on very thin ice. If things go wrong, it is ‘No national tendering for any probation service shall commence before any proposed restructuring of such services not simply a matter of saying, “Oh, dear. We’ll do has been the subject of a pilot scheme which is subsequently something else.” If things go wrong, people will be in independently monitored and the results of such monitoring laid danger; there is no doubt about that. If we dismantle before both Houses of Parliament.’. the probation service, as is intended, it will be extremely New clause 2—Requirement to pilot before restructuring difficult to put it back together again. probation services— I fail to understand—other than pure dogma—why ‘Any proposed restructuring of the Probation Service must much of the Bill is before us today. However, we will first be the subject of an independently evaluated pilot scheme have plenty of time to debate it in the coming days. I am and the proposals should be laid before Parliament and be sure that, as usual, the Minister will engage with us as approved by resolution of both Houses.’. 7 Public Bill CommitteeHOUSE OF COMMONS Offender Rehabilitation Bill [Lords] 8

Jenny Chapman: My remarks will address all of clause divided, as we see it, by risk, in spite of the fact that risk 1 and proposed new clauses 1 and 2. The Minister finds regularly shifts. Also, we will see the national roll-out of himself in an unusual situation. I have been in the a completely untested payment-by-results model. So, House only three years and other colleagues have far from what I have already said, it is possible to tell that more experience, but it is not often that a Minister we are really not enthusiastic about what the Government comes to Committee to remove a clause. Clause 1 is are proposing. very important and was inserted in the other place by a A reference to these proposals had to be forcibly Cross Bench vote, where every Cross Bencher present added to the Bill by peers because the Government did voted in favour of insertion. not want to allow any proper scrutiny of their proposals. The clause means that the Government cannot alter The only reason that we have had these proposals or reform the structure of the probation service unless outlined is because we have had an Opposition day their plans have first been laid before and approved by a debate, and because the insertion of clause 1 in the Bill resolution of both Houses of Parliament. That clause enabled us to discuss these issues on Second Reading was inserted by peers against the wishes of the Government. and indeed to discuss them today. If that clause had not It provides the reasonable safeguard that the Government been inserted, we would not be able to discuss any of allow parliamentary scrutiny before they press ahead these wider issues about the reform of the probation with proposals to change the probation service. service. All of the things that I have described would be As Government plans include a massive irreversible happening without any parliamentary scrutiny whatsoever. sell-off of the service, there is a chance that public Although we have been waiting for a while for this Bill safety will be put at risk. I am interested to hear why the to come back to this House, the Government have Government believe that parliamentary oversight is not chosen to ignore the will of one House of Parliament appropriate in this case. There is oversight of far less and they have continued with the reorganisation of the consequential matters where we do have a vote. Not service anyway. long ago, on the subject of Criminal Records Bureau Colleagues will know, because I am sure that they checks, we were invited to vote on the types of offence have been lobbied vigorously by probation officers in to be included. Those were quite detailed decisions. their constituency, about the very high level of concern However, Parliament is not to be asked for any opinion among those officers, who are currently working with on something as fundamental as this matter, which is offenders in the community. They are very worried quite disturbing. about these proposals. They know that they are being Amendment 51 is technical because the probation asked to make decisions about their jobs right now, service is not defined in statute. A probation trust exists before we have even had a chance to have any debates only by virtue of its contract with the Ministry of on these proposals. Justice, and because the probation service is not defined in statute we thought that it might be more helpful to Mr Slaughter: My hon. Friend is making a very good refer to contracts with probation trusts. This was the point, namely that it is increasingly the trend of this subject of a great deal of debate in the other place, and Government and this Secretary of State not to bring we would be very happy to see the clause amended in before the House crucial and central matters. I hope this way because we understand that the Government that the Minister will address seriously the central issue may find it deficient in some way or another; I am sure that my hon. Friend has highlighted, because it is really that we are about to hear why that might be. at the heart of the Bill. It is only because of what the Opposition and the other place have done that we are New clauses 1 and 2 were tabled by my right hon. talking at all about what is the central issue. Other parts Friend the Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd, and they of this Bill are important, but the issue that my hon. deal with the piloting of reforms. We strongly support Friend has highlighted is the central issue and it is for these new clauses and I will come back to the issue of the Government to explain why they have chosen not to piloting later. debate it properly before the House. I will just recap the main points of the Government’s proposals, since they are noticeably absent from the Jenny Chapman: That is completely right. The concerns Bill. The Government plan to abolish local probation that we have are not so much about the proposals, for trusts. They will be selling off 70% of the work load to example, to allow supervision of offenders who have private providers and we are not clear who those providers served short prison sentences; we very much support will be. We have heard them described quite colourfully those proposals. We also very much support all efforts already this morning, and I think that we are all aware to reduce reoffending. We will be talking about changes of some of the concerns about the potential providers to the way that drug use, for instance, is monitored. We that have been suggested already. However, the national are very keen to engage with that and to support the probation service will retain supervision of the remaining Government in those measures. However, these changes 30% of the work load. are fundamental to the introduction of the further Consequently, these plans will see the vast majority changes, and we think there are many other ways the of offenders—including dangerous, violent and sexual Government could have gone about introducing these offenders—handed over to companies that have no welcome new measures. It is a shame that we have not experience of probation services. That is a very important had a chance to put those to the test and to debate and point to note, because although there are several large improve them, and perhaps arrive at something we successful businesses that provide security services or could all support. that even run prisons, they do not have any experience whatsoever of providing this kind of supervision in the Paul Goggins: Can my hon. Friend say a little more community. We will see the service being fragmented about amendment 51 and the idea that there should be and the management of offenders being artificially no alteration of reform to contracts with probation 9 Public Bill Committee26 NOVEMBER 2013 Offender Rehabilitation Bill [Lords] 10 trusts? That takes us to the very heart of this issue, can deal with an organisation that is not delivering. because it is the probation trusts that have the funding That was made very clear back then in the Minister’s relationship with the Ministry of Justice and, in turn, response to an intervention from the right hon. Member commission services for their area. This would be a for Dwyfor Meirionnydd. huge change. Can she say a little more about what she It was a huge concern at the time that the 1997 Act has in mind by inserting the word “contracts”? should not be used to the ends the Government are now seeking to use it, and that is at the core of our argument 9.15 am with the Government today. Jenny Chapman: We perhaps should have started with a full debate on the reform of the probation service Paul Goggins: I know that the Minister and the more generally. We would like probation trusts, through Justice Secretary have made much of the ability to their contract with the MOJ, to be responsible for abolish as well as to create trusts, and my hon. Friend delivering services in whatever locality is deemed fit, has given a clear explanation of why. May I draw her and for them to be measured and managed far more and the Committee’s attention to remarks made by my robustly than in the past. Perhaps there would be fewer right hon. Friend Baroness Scotland of Asthal in of them, they would be larger and there would be some Committee during consideration of the Offender reorganisation. I know the Minister will rely on the Management Bill? She said: Offender Management Act 2007 to justify his decision not to lay any plans before the House, but at the very “In practice, although some services will be commissioned at a national and regional level, where it makes sense to do so, the heart of that Act was the establishment of trusts. To use great majority will be commissioned from lead providers at the it to abolish trusts seems to us— local level, who in most cases will be the public sector probation trusts.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 16 May 2007; Vol. 692, Jeremy Wright: Does the hon. Lady recognise that c.183.] the power to do exactly that—to abolish probation It could not be clearer than that, could it? trusts—is included in the Act? Jenny Chapman: That explains fully the contrast between Jenny Chapman: The Minister knows that that was what was intended and what we are faced with today. I not the intention behind the Act, and that its intention want to remind the Committee that this is not an is significant and will be subject to judicial review, as Opposition clause. The Labour party did not dream it taken up by Unison and the National Association of up to be awkward. It was tabled by the Cross-Bench Probation Officers. I look forward to that, because I peer and former chief inspector of prisons Lord think the Minister is wrong. Ramsbotham, and was supported by every Cross-Bench The Government are determined to paint the Labour peer present for that vote. I do not know when else that party and any other critics of these reforms, of which has happened. there are many, as supporting the status quo and standing Serious concerns about the Government’s reforms in the way of rehabilitation. I want to make it very clear have been raised from many quarters, and the Government at the outset that this is not a debate about the ends the should take them more seriously than they have done so Government claim to have. We all want to see improved far. It was disappointing that the Justice Secretary did reoffending outcomes and fewer victims of crime. not stay for the debate in the Chamber. It would have been helpful if he had stayed, and it would have given a Jeremy Wright: Before the hon. Lady moves on, will better impression of him, because many people are she give way? extremely concerned about what he is attempting to do. When Lord Ramsbotham introduced the amendment, Jenny Chapman: I will, because I think I know what he said: the Minister is going to say. “many of us are deeply alarmed at the absence of detail about” the cost of the proposals Jeremy Wright: The hon. Lady may well know, but I “and whether they can be implemented in the timeframe”. am afraid I am going to say it anyway. May I quote to I will come back to the timeframe in a minute. He said her section 5(1) of the 2007 Act? It states: that he was concerned because the Government’s impact “The Secretary of State may by order— assessments are inadequate, and listed a few of the risks (a) establish a probation trust for purposes specified in the that appear in the Ministry’s risk assessment. order; I would love to have seen the risk register, but I have (b) alter the name or purposes of a probation trust” not. I have been told that it states that there is an 80% or chance of “(c) dissolve a probation trust”. “an unacceptable drop in operational performance”. I was interested in what she said about a judicial review, I have not seen the document myself, so I want to know but I am not entirely clear what she means. Is she what that means. My local probation service does a very suggesting that she would support a judicial review of good job of keeping the public safe, preventing reoffending, legislation that her party passed while in government? monitoring offenders and recalling them to prison. An 80% drop in operational performance in that kind of Jenny Chapman: As I have made clear, not just this work would be quite frightening. morning but during an Opposition day debate and on That document that I have not seen also says that: Second Reading, the intention behind section 5 was to “There is a 51% to 80% likelihood that affordability objectives deal with a failing trust, so that the Secretary of State for the reforms cannot be demonstrated or met”. 11 Public Bill CommitteeHOUSE OF COMMONS Offender Rehabilitation Bill [Lords] 12

[Jenny Chapman] has said, “Please, challenge us to do this job; we want to do it and we will do it in existing budgets”. The Minister I think that does not mean that they are not going to shakes his head. If he doubts the credibility of their achieve their savings, but that they cannot afford it and offer, he needs at least to examine it properly and to they do not know how much it is going to cost. Perhaps bring it before this Committee so that we can debate it the Minister can explain exactly what a 51% to 80% risk fully as part of the Bill. It is disappointing that the only that the affordability objectives of the exercise cannot reason we are having this conversation is that we have be demonstrated or met means. The Government are tabled this clause in order to be able to raise these not able to assure us of the affordability of the proposals, points. and they cannot tell us how much the contracts will cost. It is reasonable to expect to be furnished with that information before we decide to agree with the proposals. Jeremy Wright: The proposal that the hon. Lady makes, which is that we pay for the additional 50,000 out Lord Ramsbotham concluded that the Government of existing probation budgets is very similar to the had so far failed to prove either the value or the viability custody-plus proposals that Labour was making throughout of their plans, and that noble Lords could not be asked the mid-2000s, but by 2010 had concluded was unaffordable. to rubber-stamp a Bill while there Can she explain how what she is proposing now would “are far too many doubts about the viability and affordability of be afforded? the method the Government have chosen to achieve the proposals”. —[Official Report, House of Lords, 25 June 2013; Vol. 746, c. 659-662.] Jenny Chapman: Trusts were a new thing and had not Again, he was talking about the method, not the ends. been established. They are now well established, they We are happy to support the Government’s ends, but are probably one of the best managed parts of the the means by which they seek to achieve them cause us public sector, they are achieving everything that they great concern. are being asked to do despite falling budgets and they are saying that they want to do this work. I take that Gareth Johnson (Dartford) (Con): I have repeatedly seriously. I also take it seriously when I ask them, “How heard the Opposition say that they support us in working can you afford it?” and they say, “Look around you. I with short-term prisoners, but they have failed to say am in a very expensive office in the centre of Birmingham, how they will do that. They oppose our tendering out I want to co-locate with local government, with the proposals, but they have not said what they would put police, but I am not able to make those decisions in place to enable them to work with 50,000 extra clients because I am controlled from Whitehall. I am not able in the probation service. to make decisions about my IT contracts or maintenance to my buildings. I am not able to take out contracts with Jenny Chapman: Had the hon. Gentleman been there providers of longer than a year and I am not able to for Second Reading, he might have heard us talk about carry forward a budget surplus”. All these issues have some of the things we would put in place. Perhaps he prevented trusts from being able to perform at an even was with the Secretary of State. If these proposals had better level than they have done so far. The Minister is been laid before Parliament properly, we might have really missing a trick. had more opportunity to provide those answers. However, I will concede that my party in Government established Mr Llwyd: To introduce one other factor into the probation trusts, and I do not believe—I say this while mix, later in the proceedings we will discuss amendments there are former Ministers here—that they were as to do with discretionary application of the supervision. actively managed as they could have been. The situation In other words, when an offender has come to a reasonable now is that all trusts are performing to “good” and position, it will be possible to go back to the court and “excellent” standards, and they are all achieving the have that order determined early. That will save a lot of targets in a context of falling budgets, but we decide money and will be necessary and entirely appropriate in that now is the time to abolish them and not to ask many cases. Therefore, the simple assertion that these more of them. There are trusts already providing such 50,000 will do the whole term seems to me to be services to offenders serving short sentences. They are pumping up the bill just to make it unaffordable. doing it now. They are not funded to do it, they are not required to do it, but they are doing it now because they believe that it is the right thing to do. If we were in Jenny Chapman: It would be nice to find out. It government, we would be asking a lot more of probation would be a really good idea for the Government to lay trusts. That answers the hon. Gentleman’s question. their plans before both Houses of Parliament so that we can give these issues the consideration they deserve. We Sarah Champion (Rotherham) (Lab): South Yorkshire think that they are viable. The Government clearly probation trust is consistently judged to be “outstanding”. disagree but we will never have the opportunity to find It has questioned why it could not have been asked to out. tender or come up with proposals for these short-term contracts. It seems to make sense, when the trust is Mr Mark Prisk (Hertford and Stortford) (Con): The doing a very good job already, that it be asked to extend hon. Lady says that she would achieve affordability its terms. through these organisations being able to reduce their costs. Will she therefore confirm that and put it clearly Jenny Chapman: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I on record so that they can understand that a future have not visited every probation trust but I am well on Labour Government would make no additional financial the way and every trust chief executive I have spoken to contribution? 13 Public Bill Committee26 NOVEMBER 2013 Offender Rehabilitation Bill [Lords] 14

Jenny Chapman: We inserted this clause into the “there is plenty of scope for…concern over the mechanisms that Government’s Bill to enable us to debate the sell-off of the Government are setting up, the timings and the unlimited the probation service. That is why we are here. Should I nature of the Bill.”—[Official Report, 11 November 2013; Vol. 570, ever be a Justice Minister, it would be highly unlikely c. 678.] that I would be able to go to the Chancellor of the Exchequer and ask for lots of money to spend on Mr Llwyd: In fact, so great is the concern of the probation services, given the context we are about to Justice Committee that the Minister and a colleague inherit. It falls to the Government to defend what they will be giving evidence to it tomorrow about the proposals, are trying to do, which we think is wholly unnecessary, about which even that Committee has been left in the dangerous and damaging. It is absurd to suggest that we dark. can have a meaningful debate on this service without discussing who, how, where and when, and at what cost Jenny Chapman: It is a real shame that the Justice the service will be provided, but that is exactly the Committee has not been able to make a contribution situation the Government are putting us in. regarding the reform of such an important service before it begins. The Government are losing out on the 9.30 am benefit of a huge amount of expertise from that Committee. The Government have been trying not to have a I turn now to the details of our concerns. One of the debate with us on this issue, but their plan is to introduce reasons I am extremely concerned is that this is untested—it completely inexperienced providers. We have no objection is that simple. The Secretary of State does not know to new providers coming into the market, but we object that his plans will work because he has not seen fit to to a 10-year—or 10-year-plus— contract, as experience test them. The Government might just roll their eyes as shows us that it will not be especially well managed by they listen to us going on about evidence-based policy, the Ministry of Justice. The programme will be rolled but some of us are not happy just to believe in the out at a completely unrealistic speed, but perhaps the Secretary of State’s hopes, fancies and ambitions. The Secretary of State is hoping that if he moves fast Government say that their policy will reduce reoffending, enough, no one will notice. That is probably the way he but that claim is not backed up by any analysis of how, looks at it, but I am afraid we have noticed. by whom or by how much, because there is no evidence for it. We do not know how well it will work, or if it will Paul Goggins: Before my hon. Friend zooms off at actually make the situation worse. We are told that the speed at which Ministers are pursuing their reforms success is guaranteed because providers will be paid of the probation service, may I bring her back to the only by results. That sounds great, but we know that the important issue of cost? Government Members are majority of the service fee will be paid up front with no quite right to challenge the fact that although custody link to performance whatsoever. plus was our policy when we were in government, we never delivered it, but we did not deliver it because it I am sure that the Minister is bored by this, but I have would have cost £194 million a year. At least that was repeatedly pushed him to explain exactly how much of an honest position, but the Minister is asking us to a contract will be paid by results, and how much will be believe that for the same price that he is currently paid anyway, yet we have never had an answer. I think paying for 150,000 offenders who are supervised by the that when we all started looking at PBR in this sector, probation service, he can add on the extra 50,000 offenders we anticipated that perhaps a third of the value of the whom the Bill will cover. Does not suggesting that that contract would be held back and paid only if an can be done at no additional cost strike my hon. Friend organisation met its targets. Although there would still as a rather disingenuous position? be queries about cherry-picking and how performance would be measured, that approach would be difficult to Jenny Chapman: Farbeitfrommetosaythatthe disagree with. Given where we are now, it looks as Government are being disingenuous, but it just does not though that amount could be as little as 10%, 8% or make any sense to us. We do not see how this process 3%—who knows? My faith in PBR is rapidly declining. will work, and we really regret the fact that we are being asked to agree to it without proper scrutiny. My right Mr Slaughter: My hon. Friend makes an interesting hon. Friend speaks with a great deal of experience. He point. The Bill links a good idea—the supervision of clearly shared the Minister’s aims when custody plus short-term offenders—with the bad idea of destroying was devised, and it was hugely regrettable that the a public service. The linking factor is payment by results. Government removed custody plus from the statute Of course, we know the notorious companies that tend book through the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment to acquire such contracts, so it would be interesting to of Offenders Act 2012, which I remember voting against. know how much discussion there was between the The Government are now trying to introduce something Government and those providers before the proposals similar, but in a very odd way. were devised. Has the totality of the proposal been put The Government appear to have made this up as they together to please the G4Ss and Sercos of this world? have gone along. They have introduced various models, layers and rules. They have been thinking on their feet, Jenny Chapman: My gut instinct is that it probably because the Secretary of State made a conference speech has. I meet the private providers on occasions—at round in which he said that this process was going to be table events and so on—and they are not a bad lot. I do carried out and civil servants have been furiously trying not claim that the public sector has a monopoly on to backfill to meet that commitment. Hon. Members values or impeccable performance, and I am happy to described the risks of the policy on Second Reading. say that some good work is being delivered by private The Chair of the Justice Committee, the right hon. providers. However, they were clear with me that they Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Sir Alan Beith), summed would not be happy to take part in a process whereby the position up well when he said: the PBR part of the contract represented a large element 15 Public Bill CommitteeHOUSE OF COMMONS Offender Rehabilitation Bill [Lords] 16

[Jenny Chapman] Jenny Chapman: My hon. Friend gets to the heart of the matter. The Minister could find himself in a sticky of the total value. They are looking for single-figure situation, because it may not be possible—for good PBR contracts, but I do not think that that is what hon. reasons—to award the contracts to the people he really Members want to see. wanted to take them. The big unanswered question is: who else can take them? I would be happy to take an Jeremy Wright: Will the hon. Lady give way? intervention from the Minister if he could help to shed some light on that. Obviously he cannot. Jenny Chapman: I will give way; I am fascinated. Mr Llwyd: We have hit on an important subject. I am sure that new clause 8—it is starred today, but it will Jeremy Wright: I am sure that the hon. Lady will have become unstarred later this week—will avail us of a spent time at round tables with the voluntary sector. good opportunity to look into it in great detail and Will she confirm that they say to her what they say to allow the Minister to explain his exact thinking. me: they are concerned about substantial percentages for payment by results, as opposed to fee for service, because they worry that it may exclude them from this Jenny Chapman: I look forward to that. Perhaps the kind of activity? Committee will hear more detail than we have been able to get in our debates so far. The key point is that there has been no testing or piloting, so we do not know what Jenny Chapman: The other thing that voluntary sector might go wrong. Things will go wrong but, through organisations have been busy doing is, quite sensibly, testing and piloting, one can learn how to fix as one developing partnerships with the large private sector goes. companies such as G4S and Serco. However, those partnerships are very uneven, and I wonder what might The Minister not only was uninterested in starting become of some of those projects should the Ministry pilots, but actually scrapped the two that had been of Justice prevent G4S and Serco from taking part in commissioned. I visited those pilots as they were being providing these services, as has been the case with established and I was quite impressed. The people leading prisons. them were dynamic, enthusiastic and entrepreneurial, and they wanted to do things differently. I felt sad for them when they were told that they could not continue Lorely Burt (Solihull) (LD): I am intrigued by what with that. the hon. Lady is saying. I would certainly be concerned if the Government contracted with any organisation The Government believed that the pilots were necessary that was under investigation for allegations of fraud. when they set them up. The then Minister, the hon. What is the Opposition’s position on that? She rightly Member for Reigate (Mr Blunt), said that the pilots says that voluntary organisations are looking at partnering were “groundbreaking” and that they possibilities, but is she saying that perhaps we should “will for the first time test how real freedom to innovate, alongside not go ahead with any prosecutions to enable those strong public, private and voluntary sector partnerships, could drive significant reductions in reoffending by those serving community partnerships to take place? sentences.” Those were important words; the ones that really counted Jenny Chapman: That was a helpful intervention, and were “test” and “could drive significant reductions”. He I should make it clear that we would not be at all happy was not so arrogant as to believe that he knew the with the services being provided by any organisation, answer. He was happy to test, and we were happy to from whatever sector, that was under criminal investigation support those tests. I had looked forward to seeing the by the Serious Fraud Office. The Minister has given results of the pilots. I was happy for the results not to be assurances in the past that no organisation that is under fantastic straight away, but to support them anyway, investigation will be awarded these contracts. because I know how difficult it is to deliver such things I think that at least two investigations are taking and how mistakes need to be made so that we can learn place, and the one that concerns me—and, I think, the from them. However, we will not have that opportunity hon. Lady—is the criminal investigation that the SFO is now, because the pilots were cancelled. conducting. I understand that SFO investigations can run into many months, if not years, but I have not had 9.45 am an assurance from the Minister that a SFO investigation The Secretary of State keeps referring to the must be completed before any such organisation can be Peterborough pilot commissioned by the Labour awarded a contract. That is at the core of our concerns Government and to the Doncaster pilot to cover up the about this measure. We do not want organisations that fact that he has not tested these plans at all. Peterborough could have a criminal record to be delivering services and Doncaster are not pilots of probation services; when a probation officer with a criminal record would Peterborough’s is voluntary; both are prison based, not be able to do so. rather than community based; and neither has concluded. When the earliest reports came out, both were failing to Sarah Champion: Surely one concern is about the meet their targets, but even so, we support them because situation if the big players under investigation are taken we understand that mistakes will be made along the out and the probation trusts are not allowed to tender. way. It is fortunate that Peterborough and Doncaster A colleague at a provider meeting told me that the are just pilots—when we speak to the people delivering companies left would be those such as Eddie Stobart them, they tell us how glad they are about that. They and McDonalds, which makes a mockery of the contracts. tell us that partnerships have developed and that things Who is available to take them on? have gone wrong and been put right. They are pleased 17 Public Bill Committee26 NOVEMBER 2013 Offender Rehabilitation Bill [Lords] 18 they have had the opportunity to work in quite a small weeks. The programme has, in effect, been abandoned context, because they would not have wanted the scheme until after the election because it is such a catastrophic to be rolled out nationally without the testing and the failure. The danger of pursuing the same route here is piloting. that it will create huge uncertainty, chaos, indecision The Committee does not need to take my word for it. and low morale. If the Government take the alternative The Government saw the need to set up separate pilots route, and slow down these proposals, they will simply to test their ideas on probation, but they have since confuse us all The only way this will be resolved is by decided to cancel them. We really do not understand following what is in clause 1 and abandoning this why they made that decision. As my right hon. Friend privatisation proposal. the Member for Wentworth and Dearne (John Healey) said on Second Reading, the only thing that has changed Jenny Chapman: What my hon. Friend says about the since the introduction of the pilots is the Secretary of experience of universal credit in his constituency should State. The Secretary of State has not explained why he alarm the Government. He is in good company when he decided to plough on regardless and not to continue agrees with the National Audit Office and the Public with the important learning process he could have benefited Accounts Committee. The PAC Chair said, from as part of the pilots. “Pressure to deliver a programme of this magnitude within such an ambitious timescale created a fortress culture where only good news was reported and problems were denied.” Mr Slaughter: My hon. Friend is absolutely right that the Secretary of State rushes ahead like a bull at a gate, There is clearly a parallel here—we do not want that to with the consequence that he has to make embarrassing happen to our probation services. Universal credit messed U-turns. I can think of three issues on which he has up, the Work programme not working properly, pensions made a U-turn in the past three months: raising small mis-sold—those are the results of the Government running claims limits; price competitive tendering in legal aid; at breakneck speed. Those are serious consequences, and, most relevant to today’s debate, the privatisation though not usually as serious as can be expected from a of prisons. Is the Minister, who is a much more considerate probation service not working as it should. What will an individual, not perhaps thinking that this is another 80% drop in performance mean? Will it affect public terrible error of judgment in the making and pull back safety and lives? What is it? We do not understand what before another terrible mistake is made? that means.

Sarah Champion: In the examples given by my hon. Jenny Chapman: We live in hope. Reasonable though Friend, there was a back-up plan—there was a system the Minister is, he is doing a job of work for the still in place, in the example of universal credit. In this Secretary of State. We wish him well in his career, but it situation the probation trust will be gone and we will is a shame that he has been given this task. have nothing in its place. That is obviously much more Without piloting, and in the time scale proposed by dangerous. the Justice Secretary, this untested model will be rolled out at breakneck speed into every region—everywhere Jenny Chapman: That is a fair point. The Government will have to deal with this at the same time. There will be have not said how they would deal with failure of a teething problems—when are there not? There will be provider. I am thinking of Southern Cross, whose head IT glitches. Any serious failures in communication in office was in my constituency, so I followed that case the new risk model will have to be dealt with on a closely. No one had anticipated the failure of a large national scale. There is no opportunity to refine or provider of adult social care services. Members will improve, and no guarantee that the system will operate recall the huge panic about how it would be dealt with, to a high standard when it is rolled out. who would step in, how much it would cost and what it There are plenty of precedents for mistakes being would mean, most importantly for residents of the care made when initiatives are rolled out quickly. Universal homes. What plans does the Ministry of Justice have for credit had to be slowed down to walking pace to deal dealing with financial or any kind of failure of one of with serious management issues and IT failures. So as the providers, perhaps resulting from a criminal not to be partisan, I should say that the Labour Government investigation? Those are important questions and we had their fair share of blunders—policies that sounded have had no assurances from the Government. There great and had fantastic aims everyone agreed with, but are no clear plans about how they would deal with that that did not quite work out as planned. Individual kind of situation. learning accounts are an example: the aim behind them The Prime Minister believes that was great, but they did not quite work out as planned and they were subject to a high degree of fraud. That “The Secretary of State and the Department are doing exactly the right thing in rolling this out in a progressive way and in a way happened because they were introduced at breakneck that allows us to learn lessons as we go.” speed, without enough scrutiny or sufficient piloting. The Minister should learn not just from his own mistakes, I think he must have been a bit mixed up, because that is but perhaps from some of ours as well. We are happy to not what the Department is doing at all. It is a pity that learn from them. he has not had a chance to sign the Justice Secretary up to his view about learning as we go. The speed at which the upheaval is being pushed through is a serious concern. Mr Slaughter: I agree with my hon. Friend up to a The clause is designed to build time into the process for point. She mentioned universal credit, which my local evidence gathering and scrutiny, and to extend the time authority is piloting in London. The pilot is in such available to make the changes safely. If the Government chaos, and the roll-out is going at such a pace, that just are hellbent on proceeding in this way, at least let it be seven benefit recipients have been affected in the first to a responsible, considered timetable. 19 Public Bill CommitteeHOUSE OF COMMONS Offender Rehabilitation Bill [Lords] 20

[Jenny Chapman] “there are significant risks in the pace at which the Government intend to implement the programme”.—[Official Report, 11 November The Minister has said that he will not apologise for 2013; Vol. 570, c. 682.] moving quickly and the Justice Secretary has suggested Ministers’ own officials have described the timetable as that opposition to the pace of change is irresponsible to aggressive. In the past couple of months, three probation victims of crime, but it is not responsible to sign on the trust chairs have taken the bold step of writing to the dotted line for an uncertain programme to be rolled out Secretary of State to advise him to delay his plans or at unrealistic speed. Rushed change is not the same as risk inevitable public probation failures—a euphemism effective reform. If the Government get it wrong, the for more crime and more victims of crime. The chairs of risk is unacceptably high. We can all name half a dozen Derbyshire, Leicestershire and Warwickshire probation projects that have gone wrong. In the light of that trusts have, in turn, warned that the time frame is risky, experience, we think the Government should consider unrealistic and has serious implications for service delivery. more carefully the argument about the rushed timetable. They are prepared to stick their heads above the parapet; privately, many more express exactly the same concerns. If the Justice Secretary is convinced by the quality of Gareth Johnson: Will the hon. Lady not accept that his Government’s performance and their chances of the proposal enables us for the first time to work with being returned to office, he should not be so concerned short-term prisoners? No other Government have achieved about the 2015 deadline and binding the hands of the that. The Opposition, who say that they support working next Government. Although the Secretary of State with short-term prisoners, are trying to find any opportunity apparently believes that one does not pilot a revolution— to frustrate it. Is that not irresponsible opposition? that is what he said—Members of both Houses are not alone in recommending intelligent piloting and a phased Jenny Chapman: No, it is irresponsible government to roll-out. That is what we would like to see and what we push it through. We support supervision of short-term were happy to give our support to. prisoners, which is why we brought in provisions to Members of the Committee will be aware of the allow it to happen, but trusts are already doing it off “inglorious saga”, as it was memorably christened by their own bat. That is our point: we want trusts to do the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, of the more and we would be more demanding of trusts in Ministry of Justice’s language service contract. Following getting them to do the work that some, to their credit, the train wreck that was the Department’s procurement are already doing. process, the PAC reported that: “The Ministry did not conduct a proper pilot or a phased roll-out to ensure a smooth transition”. Mr Slaughter: I am sure that my hon. Friend and Again, the Government failed to learn from experience. other Members can enlighten me: did we just hear a The PAC recommended that: Government Member say that the probation trusts are being offered as a sweetener to private companies, to “The Ministry should draft and implement future contracts so as to minimise transitional problems, for example through piloting induce them to take on the short-term prisoners? That and rolling-out new systems gradually”. seems to be what is being said. If the hon. Gentleman was not saying that, I am sure that he will correct us, but It really is quite straightforward. The NAO reported that is what I heard. that the Ministry had underestimated the risks when it switched to a national roll-out. It allowed the contract to become operational before it was ready. A steady Jenny Chapman: I shall not answer for the hon. regional roll-out Gentleman, but I am happy to act as a conduit if he “would have allowed the Ministry to limit the effect of poor wishes to respond. performance or other ‘teething troubles’…and also to pause the On the question of the timetable, the operating model rollout if performance was…bad.” was published only in September and today is our first That is quite straightforward advice from the PAC, and proper opportunity to debate it. The trusts are supposed the Government paid no attention to it. to be abolished by April, but as of a couple of weeks ago, probation officers that I have spoken to—I speak 10 am to them almost daily at the moment—had still not seen When performance is poor, as it has been after the the new IT systems and did not have a huge amount of roll-out of the Work programme, the outcome is serious. confidence in the IT that will be provided for the If the performance of a provider is poor while it is project. They say of the recently introduced system that responsible for managing dangerous offenders in the if, for example, they enter an offender’s new address on community, the risk is unacceptable. It is disappointing, a Friday, the information has not been retained when to say the least, that the Government seem not to have they come back on a Monday. That is worrying enough learned recent lessons, and that they are not doing all when one organisation deals with an offender, but when they can to ensure a safe, smooth continuation of the many organisations potentially deal with the same offender, service as they implement the change. sharing information and reliability of those systems are crucial. It is not for me to have confidence in that, but I can assure members that practitioners in the field have Mr Prisk: On a point of order, Mr Robertson. The very little confidence that it will work. hon. Lady has spoken for an hour. The amendment is The May 2015 deadline for completing the project important, and is quite a tight one, but we seem to have was probably not just plucked out of the air by the got to universal credit, adult care services and other Secretary of State. The Chair of the Justice Committee things. Can you guide me: are we in effect having a has said that, stand part debate? 21 Public Bill Committee26 NOVEMBER 2013 Offender Rehabilitation Bill [Lords] 22

The Chair: I think we will treat it as a stand part Jenny Chapman: That is helpful and I am grateful to debate. There will be no stand part debate after this, so the Minister for making it clear, but it has not been clear anyone who wants to speak on matters outside the up until now. amendments may do so. Jeremy Wright: I said it on Second Reading. Jenny Chapman: That is a huge shame. Debate on the clause could allow proper consideration of the Jenny Chapman: The Minister may have said it on Government’s measures to abolish a key part of our Second Reading, but it was not clear, and probation public services that protects the public. It is hugely officers are certainly not clear that that is the case. He is regrettable that hon. Members will not be able to consider again doing himself a disservice in not taking his time it as fully as they should. I shall continue. I apologise to with the proposals. Such an important piece of information the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford if he finds is not out there and well understood by probation the debate a little dull, but I could speak for far longer officers. The switch of responsibility will still occur. I than an hour on the issue, as we are not being given the am pleased to hear that it may not happen repeatedly, opportunity for debate that we should be able to expect. but it will still happen when something in an offender’s What the Government propose is very risky. life has escalated their risk level. That is the point at There are more pressing areas of concern. The which they are very vulnerable to committing a further Government would like to dismiss talk of risk as offence, and the exact point at which their supervisor scaremongering, but the service we are talking about and the organisation responsible for them will change. manages risk to the public. The Government’s plans That is a major weakness in the Government’s proposals. begin by inviting inexperienced providers to participate After years of evidence that joined-up working is and by splitting provision in two. I want to discuss how most efficient, the Government plan to split the high the Government intend to apportion offenders according and low-risk services, which we see as institutionalising to their risk category. Risk will be established using a a gap in the system. The chief inspector of probation new risk-assessment tool, but—this is also worrying—we has warned: have not seen it, and practitioners do not yet know how “Any lack of contractual or operational clarity between the it will work. public and private sector…will…lead to systemic failure and an “Risk” is a term that gets used a lot in debates, and increased risk to the public.” not always in a well-informed way. Risk is a combination That is the point that most concerns anybody working of factors: it is an indication of how imminent the risk in probation. They know how important it is to have of harm is, and how serious the consequences of reoffending excellent communication with colleagues and sharing of might be. It is not simply a measure of the seriousness information with other agencies such as the police. It of a person’s offence. It is possible for someone to be a has taken a long time to make partnerships with the medium-risk offender when they have committed very police and other organisations good, although, as things serious offences. stand, such partnerships are not good everywhere, every Most importantly for the purposes of the debate, risk time. How much harder will it be when an unknown is not static: it fluctuates according to an offender’s organisation—possibly G4S or Serco—pitches up, with circumstances. Low risk can become high risk the instant all the surrounding anxiety for probation officers? In a person consumes alcohol, for example, or when a that context, how much more difficult will it be to build relationship breaks down. The Ministry of Justice does a relationship of trust between practitioners? That is not really have figures on that, but at least 25% of the nub of the issue for most people working with offenders change their risk category during the period offenders. They are deeply concerned about the transition of their order. In addition, they do not change just and want to know what the Government are going to once. An offender can change risk category many times do to ensure that there are no difficulties at that point. because of unpredictable circumstances. Again, because of the lack of scrutiny and the lack of That could mean that responsibility for monitoring an opportunity for debate, the Government are not an offender would switch many times during the order giving themselves the opportunity to reassure not just period. Each time that happened, there would be a the Committee, but people out there working with likelihood of something being missed, or of some offenders. information not being passed on. We know from problems that occur in safeguarding children that lapses in good Sarah Champion: My hon. Friend mentions collaborative communication can have catastrophic results. working. In Rotherham, we have a very successful impact team that is co-locating the police, the probation service, Jeremy Wright: The hon. Lady is right that this is an the drugs team and the housing team. They are clear important issue. I would like to help the Committee on that that dynamic will, if privatisation goes ahead, be the specific question of whether there will be multiple completely blown apart, not least because a private transfers backwards and forwards, which was also raised organisation will suddenly be present. They do not on Second Reading. The position of our reforms is that, believe that the sharing of information or the trust and if somebody moves from being a medium-risk offender support they are able to give to an individual will be to a high-risk offender, the management of that offender able to continue. will move from the CRC to the national probation service. I know the hon. Lady appreciates that, but I Jenny Chapman: I thank my hon. Friend. I have would like to reassure her and the Committee that, if heard exactly the same comments from trusts all over that person’s risk profile changes back to medium risk, the country. The Minister should know just how anxious they will not move back to the CRC but remain with the probation officers and the chief executives of trusts are national probation service, so there will not be the about that. We have not had any reassurance from the multiple changes she is worried about. Government that the new arrangements will run smoothly. 23 Public Bill CommitteeHOUSE OF COMMONS Offender Rehabilitation Bill [Lords] 24

[Jenny Chapman] “shut out by the very large scale of contracts”. At the first report stage of the Work programme, every Another cause of huge concern—Members have single provider was failing to meet its targets. That was expressed displeasure in previous debates—is the record a disaster for the Work programme, but how big a of the Ministry of Justice in procuring the kinds of disaster might it be in respect of the supervision of services we are discussing. The procurement process for offenders in the community? the language services contract, to which I briefly referred In the criminal justice sector, two companies are earlier, was described by the Chair of the Select Committee between them contracted to provide tagging, community on Justice as follows: payback, prison operations and prisoner escort services. “It might almost have been constructed as a cautionary tale of The two companies are failing ably to deliver all their what a Department should avoid in undertaking a procurement contracts and have admitted to overcharging the taxpayer. and contract management process.”—[Official Report, 20 June 2013; Vol. 564, c. 300WH.] The companies have even offered to pay back millions of pounds—in a credit note, of course—and are being The Justice Committee found that the Department’s investigated for fraud. handling of the contract was nothing short of shambolic. The Department did not have an adequate understanding At a PAC hearing last week, the chief executive of of the service it was tendering, it failed to heed warnings G4S said that he did not think the company had known from professionals and it did not introduce sufficient the difference between right and wrong, which is safeguards to prevent interruptions in the quality of extraordinary for a company that wants to supervise service. The Public Accounts Committee summed it up: offenders. Will the Minister tell us whether the Government will prevent G4S and Serco from bidding for the “The Ministry was not an intelligent customer”. contracts—I bet he will not—until the Serious Fraud The Department has far from proved that it has the Office has completed its investigation? That would go a capacity to undertake and ably manage a procurement huge way to allay some of the fears out there in the process on that scale. The Minister, to his credit, has sector. taken some steps to improve the situation. I know he has introduced a new crack squad to manage contracts, 10.15 am but we do not yet know how well that will work. It is very early days, and I do not think the provision should Will the Minister update the Committee on what be the first test of that new team. effect—hypothetically—the withdrawal of the companies would have on the ability of the Government to deliver In a Commons debate on the subject, the right hon. the plans? They seem to depend heavily on the involvement Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed assumed that he did of these large companies. I am not sure that the plans not need to spell out that, if things go wrong in probation could go ahead in the timetable envisaged were those and in other contracted services, we would lead organisations not to take part. As I mentioned “face a multiple-train crash.” —[Official Report, 20 June 2013; earlier, partnerships have been developed with the voluntary Vol. 564, c. 296WH.] sector, which has assumed, like everyone else, that G4S As we face a tendering process for an untested model and Serco will be well placed to take on the contracts. rolled out at breakneck speed with a risk management model that probation professionals have vehemently warned against, I am not so sure of his assumption. Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab): I am sure my hon. Friend is aware that Government Ms and their Although the Government claim to champion localism, probation trusts will see the transfer of some 75,000 low the Secretary of State is being granted free rein to and medium-risk offenders—sex offenders, domestic abolish local trusts and to choose how his Department violence offenders, robbers, burglars and all manner of buys services from huge multinational organisations. offenders—into the private sector, without any expertise We will come back to that again and again, but the same to run services that are untried and untested. Is that not usual players are developing a monopoly in public a concern for Government Members? service provision. We have deep concerns about that. The Government’s plans promise that expertise will be added into the mix by smaller voluntary and third Jenny Chapman: If it is not, it should be. My fear is sector organisations, but we have heard all that before. I that it is not. We do not know whether G4S and Serco accept that some probation trusts have not been as will be involved or who will be conducting the supervision proactive as we would like in working with third sector of offenders. We do not know how or even whether they organisations and voluntary groups, and I would support will be trained, or how they will be supervised. We do measures that require them to do so, but the measure is not know what qualifications or experience they would completely the wrong way to go about it. After billing be expected to have, or what level of decision-making the Work programme as an opportunity for small, responsibility they would have. That is causing a huge specialist organisations, the majority of contracts were amount of anxiety in a profession that is supervising given to large corporations. Charities found themselves people in the community right now. squeezed out and underpaid. It has become a common The Government could benefit from slowing down phrase, but the charities were used as bid candy. The and having a proper pilot. Crucially, they should allow Opposition and the charities are mindful of that. proper parliamentary scrutiny of the proposal. I have been an MP for only three years, but I do not remember The National Council for Voluntary Organisations a time when a Government have got away with such states that, under the Government’s biggest public service upheaval without bringing anything before Parliament. reform so far, charities have been It is extraordinary that they have attempted to do that. I “squeezed out by large commercial providers.” am grateful to the other place for inserting the clause, The NCVO also states that charities have been without which we would quite rightly be ruled out of 25 Public Bill Committee26 NOVEMBER 2013 Offender Rehabilitation Bill [Lords] 26 order for trying to discuss some of the means by which He then quoted officials who talked about the need for: the Government intend to implement their reforms. I “undertaking further work on statutory responsibilities”, have made clear our objections and our reasons for and so on. He said: objecting, and I urge hon. Members to support the clause. “Surely it is a bit late for that, when work on the Bill is so far advanced.” He went on further, but I realise that I must not quote at Mr Llwyd: I agree with everything that the hon. too great a length. However, I would like to make one or Member for Darlington has said. It was quite a performance two more points briefly, because they are germane to and she took her time, but she was right to do so, this particular debate. because the clause is clearly a crucial part of the Bill. At Lord Ramsbotham also said: the conclusion of her remarks, she referred to things said in the other place, and it is right that we should “It is stated that insufficient support for the reforms by probation management, staff and staff associations leads to failure to have a flavour of the debate there. progress design and implementation to time and quality; that it is On 25 June, the noble Lord Ramsbotham began not possible to design the programme to a timescale that meets speaking to the amendment by stating: ministerial expectations and/or the coalition’s commitment to roll out payment by results by 2015; that insufficient participation by “My Lords, as I have said on a number of occasions, this is a the market in competition leads to failure to secure value-for-money curious Bill. While the whole House welcomes its intentions,”— bids or at-risk elements of reforms; that new service and market as we do— models implemented as a result of the programme are ineffective “many of us are deeply alarmed at the absence of detail about and/or inefficient, leading to operational, financial and reputational their cost and how and whether they can be implemented in the impacts and failure to realise the planned benefits”. timeframe depicted on page 34 of the so far undiscussed Transforming He went on to say: Rehabilitation White Paper.” “To expect this House, denied a veto, to rubber-stamp the Bill He went on: at this stage is to treat it with contempt because there are far too “Last Thursday, the Minister was kind enough to e-mail me a many doubts about the viability and affordability of the method copy of the revised impact assessment, which I have to admit I the Government have chosen to achieve the proposals to which it find as disappointing as its predecessor, because it is...so thin on is related, and the impact of destroying what is in place before analysis of impact, cost or risk. I note that, yet again, the proper evaluation of the ability of what is proposed in its stead to Government’s justification for not releasing more details is that to do better. I therefore ask the Minister to suspend further discussion”. publish estimates would put contractual negotiations at risk and Lord Ramsbotham was then very ably supported by so prejudice the effectiveness of the competition for delivery of Lord Beecham in another strong speech. Lord Beecham offender services. said: Lord Ramsbotham then goes on to say: “I do not blame officials for this, nor do I blame the Minister in “We all want reoffending to be reduced”. this House. The blame lies with the Lord Chancellor and Secretary Again, I pause to say that everybody in this room would of State Mr Grayling, whose only reaction so far, I understand, is agree with that. However, he continued: to have ordered a leaks inquiry.” “But we do not want to see any programme with that end fall flat That inquiry was about the risk register. Lord Beecham on its face because understandable concerns about the viability of continued: untried theories, in the uncertain world in which many offenders “Lord Randolph Churchill famously described Gladstone as live what can only be described as chaotic and dysfunctional lives, an old man in a hurry. The Lord Chancellor is a relatively young have been ridden over roughshod in the desire to satisfy a party man in a hurry, but he, as I am sure the noble Lord, Lord politically directed timetable that pays no attention to practical McNally, would agree, is no Gladstone.” —[Official Report, House reality.” of Lords, 25 June 2013; Vol. 746, c. 659-663] He then went on to make another vital point: Those are the few remarks that I have to make in “There is also the importance of taking people with you, relation to amendment 51. I agree with everything that particularly those whom you employ. Loyalty, like responsibility the hon. Lady has said and I will not retread the ground and accountability, is a two-way process. You cannot expect that she has very ably set out. However, in the time people to be loyal to you unless they know that they can rely on allowed to me, I would like to speak to new clauses 1 your loyalty to them.” and 2, which I have tabled. I could go on, but that in itself is a very important New clause 1 states: statement. “No national tendering for any probation service shall commence Lord Ramsbotham also referred to the Chairman of before any proposed restructuring of such services has been the the Justice Committee, the right hon. Member for Berwick- subject of a pilot scheme which is subsequently independently upon-Tweed, who the previous week had said that the monitored and the results of such monitoring laid before both MOJ was “responsible for carrying out” these “ambitious Houses of Parliament.’.” plans” and had New clause 2 states: “displayed naivety about the contracting out of key services and “Any proposed restructuring of the Probation Service must lacked the capacity to know what it was doing.” first be the subject of an independently evaluated pilot scheme I know the right hon. Gentleman, I have sat with him and the proposals should be laid before Parliament and be on the Justice Committee for some years and I know approved by resolution of both Houses.’.” that he does not make those kind of remarks very often, With your permission, Mr Robertson, I will speak to unless he is driven by necessity to do so. Those are both those new clauses together. pretty heavy and cutting remarks. Governments of all persuasions have a recent history As Lord Ramsbotham went on to say: of sensibly piloting new measures in the justice system “The change programme that has been laid before us is far from before considering any national roll-out. We have seen complete”. pilots for payment by results at HMP Peterborough and 27 Public Bill CommitteeHOUSE OF COMMONS Offender Rehabilitation Bill [Lords] 28

[Mr Llwyd] A third states: “There is a risk that an unacceptable drop in operational HMP Doncaster, for drug-reduction schemes, for satellite- performance (during the programme) leads to delivery failure(s) tracking, for the domestic violence 28-day prevention and reputational damage”. order, for Jane’s law and, latterly, for Clare’s law, as well The final risk I want to highlight states: as many others. “There is a risk that insufficient participation by the market in Proposals to restructure the probation service are competition leads to failure to secure value for money bids for ‘at complex, challenging, totally untried and untested. risk’ elements of reforms”. Transforming rehabilitation, probably more so than any We should not forget that the bottom-line risk is to the other new initiative in the justice system, strongly suggests public. Such risks represent real warnings that should piloting before any national implementation. The time be heeded. At the very least, we should slow down the scale alone is so tight that it invites mistakes, miscalculations process, because it seems as though we are rushing to and risks to the public. The Government’s unpublished meet some political or dogmatic target that leaves everybody risk assessment states: open to question and risk. “This is a complex, large scale change programme to be completed within an aggressive time frame”. 10.30 am I remind the Committee that such restructuring requires staff to be allocated into roles in the new organisations, Paul Goggins: My right hon. Friend is an expert on the reallocation of up to 250,000 offender cases, the these issues and always well worth listening to. Is not implementation and testing of the new operating model, the point the fundamental risk to public safety that he the establishment of 21 new Government companies, mentions? Probation officers are managing the risk that the appointment of a new senior management team for is posed by offenders and those who have been offenders the yet-to-be established new national probation service, every day in our constituencies. The Government should the transfer of 18,000 staff to new employers, the allocation be looking for innovative ways to try to reduce reoffending of 500 premises in whole or part to the national probation rates, but they should not be reckless with public safety. service or Government companies, and the re-engineering of ICT provision to enable the operation of the new Mr Llwyd: I agree entirely. I think everybody on both entities. sides of the room would agree that we need to look at There will be an operational split, so that, by April innovation, and the 2007 Act did that. It effectively said 2014, the new operating model will have been implemented that probation trusts would commission various bits of within each trust, with clearly delineated operational work from the third sector and the private sector—from units responsible for the public sector functions. That wherever the expertise lay at the time. That was absolutely will be followed by a structural split to be completed by appropriate. All of us believe that something should be autumn 2014, when all staff will have been transferred done about the 12-month cohort—it is common ground to either the new public sector probation service or the between us—but the question is about how to do that new private companies. The probation trusts would while minimising the risk. We are currently maximising cease to be responsible for delivering services and would the risk, because if one or two of the elements fall start to be wound down. The timetable and programme down, there is no doubt that we are in deep trouble. I must surely be fraught with problems. To give but one agree with the right hon. Gentleman about that. example: The right hon. Gentleman refers to the probation “On the corporate services side the arrangements are as varied service. The National Association of Probation Officers as the number of trusts and include a range from complete has helped me in preparing this speech. The association reliance on the Local Authority for all support services to comparatively newly purchased, stand-alone contracted services, was led to understand that the risk of insufficient for example for payroll and HR systems”. market participation has significantly increased and that, in certain areas to be contracted, there is currently The Ministry of Justice believes that there are in the no expression of interest. I do not know whether the region of 2,000 ICT packages, and, according to the Minister wishes to respond to that point, but that in Ministry’s own information, the itself should be sufficient reason for piloting rather than “complexity of closing down all these systems and moving to a rolling this out. shared services approach will present a considerable challenge”. However, there are many other problems as well. The Those are the words of the unpublished risk assessment process for assigning staff to the new organisations is and not those of any union or outside body. highly complex. There seem to be two methods: automatic The risk assessment, on which I have a slightly different assignment and expressions of interest. Certain staff take, gives ratings known as a BRAG score—brown, who work in discrete operational functions will be red, amber, green. A score of 20 indicates significant automatically assigned to the new organisations, but detrimental effect and has roughly an 80% chance of how can staff be expected to accept transfer when they occurring. A number of risks, disturbingly, hit the 20 mark. do not know who their employer will be, what the terms One states: of employment will be, where they will be located, what “There is a risk that insufficient support for the reforms by size of case load they will have, what their job description probation (management/staff/staff associations) leads to failure will be, whether they will lose the rights to advise the to progress design and implementation to time and quality”. courts and parole boards, what the equality impact Another says: assessment will be, what the financial or personal health “There is a risk that the affordability objectives for the reforms risk will be, and what will be the personal risk assessment cannot be demonstrated or met, leading to failure to secure for such a transfer? All those matters are currently up in approvals during the programme or financial and operational risk the air which, again, bolsters the notion that we need to and reputational damage to the department after implementation”. pause and pilot. 29 Public Bill Committee26 NOVEMBER 2013 Offender Rehabilitation Bill [Lords] 30

Jenny Chapman: The right hon. Gentleman hits on The Ministry of Justice admits that if, as a result of the point of professionals in the service. Is he as concerned the expression of interest exercise, the job posts available as I am that there will be a group of professionals are oversubscribed in either the new companies or the working only with high-risk offenders? Does he agree probation service, further sifting will take place to achieve that the pressures that puts on individuals, who might the necessary balance of staffing in both organisations. not get the supervision that is needed to work in that Will that mean redundancies? Again, it removes choice, kind of context, will lead to risks? and I suggest that the best way forward is a pilot.

Mr Llwyd: I agree entirely with the hon. Lady’s Alex Cunningham: The right hon. Gentleman is outlining important point. It is also the case that risk varies, as clearly the risks that are associated with the proposals she rightly pointed out in her speech. It could vary due of the Secretary of State—that young man in a hurry to numerous things, such as falling back into alcoholism, with an aggressive time scale. How would the Secretary domestic violence or the break-up of a relationship. of State lose out if he decided to have a pilot or two? That risk could change almost immediately, but I am worried that the professional probation service will not Mr Llwyd: That is the point; I do not see that he be on hand immediately to deal with it. would lose out on anything. In fact, he would gain the credence of all the justice organisations, which are Lorely Burt: The right hon. Gentleman talks about desperately concerned. The Magistrates Association, probation officers working solely with high-risk ex-offenders. the probation service and the police are worried. The I have been informed that approximately 40% of the courts are worried and the Crown court judges are work of the probation service surrounds the assessment worried—everybody is worried. Holding a pilot would of risk in the courts, rather than in direct contact with mean that the Secretary of State would be seen as high-risk offenders. Are there not programmes running somebody who is prepared to listen, ameliorate people’s under the probation trusts in which probation officers concerns and take a bit of time. work solely with high-risk offenders? All the points I have made could be ironed out with a better time scale and further discussion. What grieves Mr Llwyd: Yes, there are, but the hon. Lady might be me about this process is that there is unanimous support interested to know that in her area there are no fewer for dealing with the problem of the under 12-month than 20,988 low and medium-risk offenders, which is by cohort, which needs supervision. We are ad idem on any account a huge number. Are we going to entrust that point. However, I am concerned, as I am sure all those offenders to people who do not have adequate Opposition Members are, because we have not had a training and would have to call people in to determine a consensual approach. Why do we not put the brake on change of risk? I think that there are huge problems things and sit down to ensure that this is done correctly? here. It might take a month, or two or three—I do not From my early years in the legal profession I have know—but at this moment in time, all the points I have been a supporter of the probation service, which I have raised are up in the air, and there has been no clear seen change people around and turn youngsters away indication of any kind of answer. That is grossly unfair from crime. I am proud to see that some of the people I on the professionals in the field. It will impact on their defended when I was a young man are now leaders of performance. Although they are thoroughgoing their communities in civic offices. They would not have professionals, I would be concerned if I did not know achieved that without the professional probation service, where I would be in a month or two, if I would be which spent time with them, understood them, helped relocated to another part of the UK, if I would be on them and turned them around. If we lose the professional one side or t’other, what kind of work I would be doing probation service, I am afraid that we will lose a heck of and whether my expertise would be completely wasted. a lot for the future. That would affect my morale as well. Probation officers The second method of assigning staff, if automatic are remarkably resilient people—I have known many of assignment would not be appropriate, involves an expression them over many years—but this is taking them to of interest. Staff spread across certain functions will breaking point. express an interest in being on either side of the It is uncertain what will happen to staff who are on divide. Such roles might include operational assistant secondment. Will they be able to return to their post chiefs, operational manager roles, operational offender when the secondment is over? What will happen to an management roles, programme tutors—for example, for individual if their substantive post no longer exists? It sex offender treatment—and other operational staff. It looks as though reception staff will automatically be might include staff involved in court duty who can be given to the private sector unless the building in which on either side of the divide. The Department will introduce they are located is predominantly run by the public sifting criteria, which have not yet been fully disclosed. sector, in which case they will stay put. I acknowledge The Government state that community rehabilitation that the reallocation of staff is a massive task and companies and the national probation service so a bit longer is needed to do it properly. Clearly there “will need to work effectively with each other and with other will be appeal procedures if staff think that the relevant partners…to achieve success in reducing reoffending” method was not applied, that the process was inconsistent, and that the information used to make the decision was “to ensure an integrated and holistic approach to rehabilitation” incorrect or incomplete, or that there was any and public protection. How can that happen when most discrimination. staff are effectively being given no choice about where It is understood that everyone in the probation service they work in the future? Will the police negotiate has been asked to fill in a form asking them what they information-sharing protocols with the private sector were doing on 11 November 2013, which will then providers? What guarantee will there be of confidentiality? determine which side of the divide they are likely to be 31 Public Bill CommitteeHOUSE OF COMMONS Offender Rehabilitation Bill [Lords] 32

[Mr Llwyd] are medium risk, but what does medium risk mean? In essence, the medium risk offender is defined as someone on. Staff repeatedly say that all days are different—they who is assessed as posing a medium risk of causing could be dealing with a court or a hostel, or be on a serious harm to themselves or others using the probation prison visit or dealing with high, medium or low-risk service’s OASYS assessment tool referred to earlier. offenders. That would all happen on different days This combines actuarial measures with professional during the week and, in some instances, at different judgements made by trained and experienced staff alongside parts of a day. To have an arbitrary cut-off point of information provided through local partnerships with 11 November is little short of ridiculous. police and other agencies. Complex sifting criteria are being introduced to determine The medium risk group includes people who have what happens when the automatic assignment does not been convicted of violence, sexual matters, burglary, apply, such as when dealing with the case management and domestic violence, and some known gang members. and supervision of high and very high risk of serious There are two types of risk that the service assesses and harm cases, with multi-agency public protection monitors: risk of offending and risk of serious harm. In arrangements work, with middle managers, with court the Ministry of Justice’s definition of risk, someone is probation officers, with probation service officers and only placed in the high risk category if it is assessed that with administrators. In those cases, decisions will be an offence could happen at any time. If they appear to based on what individuals have been doing in the previous be stable they are classed as medium risk, but risk levels six-month period. That, again, is a highly complex change on a daily basis. Risk of harm assessment in process that must not be rushed. It is so dangerous that particular is much more dependent on what can appear it cries out for a pilot scheme. to be small changes in behaviour. For example, if someone Further to complicate matters, consultation is occurring convicted of domestic abuse enters into a new relationship, with staff on the measures that trusts or the Ministry there are issues over contact with children, increasing envisage will be taken in relation to staff due to the alcohol use and financial problems. All of these could transfer to either side of the divide. There is no formal have an impact and act as triggers causing risk levels to definition of those measures, but they are generally rise rapidly. considered to cover any changes in working practices, job functions or work location, and redundancies that Sarah Champion: The right hon. Gentleman talks the existing or new employer expects to make as a result about the handover of offenders and the triggers for of the transfer. All staff have to be given the right to be people going from medium risk to high risk. Does he consulted about these so-called measures, and a number agree that one of the key trigger points is the loss of or have been identified so far in the consultation: the change in a key relationship? For a number of these implementation of a national agreement on staff transfer; offenders the key relationship is with the probation reorganisation; shadow running; the transfer out of officer, and in some instances that handover process pension schemes; handing in of security passes and IT could take up to six months, or at least is a planned and equipment; handover of case load, information and informed process at the moment, for example if a staff documentation; and the transfer of electronic data. member is leaving or retiring. One of the concerns is Things are complicated even further by the case split that this handover is not planned, that the probation of the 240,000 offenders currently looked after by probation officer does not know who they are handing over to, trusts. The Ministry has come up with a risk allocation and that it could really trigger a transition from medium tool, which is a mix of the offender group reconviction to high risk in a number of offenders. scheme and OASys, the offender assessment system. A number of factors are taken into account: the age and Mr Llwyd: I agree with the hon. Lady and I could gender of the offender, and their previous and current further say that in days gone by, part of the function of offences. The offender is then given a score predicting the probation service was to befriend and advise. Although the likelihood of reconviction. The tool will assess those are not words normally used nowadays, the purpose behaviour likely to lead to a sexual offence, but psychologists of a probation officer’s assistance is to back somebody who have been consulted by staff say that that is beyond up, give them a role model and give them assistance a probation officer’s knowledge base. Before the case where they require it. The chemistry between the individual split, information will be needed about the likelihood of and the probation officer is key. The hon. Lady is the offender having contact with vulnerable adults, and absolutely right that there is a further possible flashpoint there are many other questions that staff have to answer there which could implode. I certainly hope that it does before a case is allocated. not, but she is right to say that it could. On the basis of an individual’s score, there will be an Probation staff are trained to monitor and assess allocation of risk. Staff will be able to expand on their changes and intervene quickly if required. Once again answers, but that does not appear to have any impact on the complexities around risk suggest that a pilot would the score. At this point, no information is available be the best way forward. Under the proposals, offenders about what will be put in place to allow information will potentially be passed back and forth between agencies sharing, about whether bidding organisations will have at the worst possible time—when they are in crisis with proper safeguarding policies, and about how sensitive increasing risk. Information of a highly confidential information will be stored and whether it will be secure. nature will be open to huge numbers of different agencies. The scope for information being misused or lost is 10.45 am therefore large. Local accountability and immensely To make matters even worse, there is confusion about important local partnerships risk being lost. In summary, what constitutes medium risk. NAPO estimates that this is a highly complex, controversial, potentially dangerous half of the 150,000 cases that are likely to be privatised reorganisation. The proposals are completely untested. 33 Public Bill Committee26 NOVEMBER 2013 Offender Rehabilitation Bill [Lords] 34

I find it astonishing when the Secretary of State says, I rise to support the retention of new clause 1 and the “Sometimes you have got to do things because they are amendments in the names of my hon. Friends. Like right.” Who knows if they are right? Will we find out in Members across the House, I share the frustrations that six or nine months that they were wrong? In this day are so frequently aired around the high levels of reoffending and age, when we deal with evidence-based legislation experienced by our communities, because it is the and we try to tie everything we say to an evidence base, I communities that actually experience it. I am sure we all really cannot understand why we should take a flier agree that action must be taken to break the cycle. with public safety in this way. It is absolutely unbelievable. Whatever we discuss in Committee, it is critical that we do not lose sight of the need for a probation service that is fit for purpose and able to deal with the wide range of Paul Goggins: My hon. Friend made a very powerful offenders referred to it, including the many new ones and well informed speech, and his amendments are under the Government’s welcome proposals on people important. I put it to him—and hopefully also to the who serve less than 12 months. We need a reformed Minister—that although he is at the very least sceptical probation service that also has the confidence of the about these changes, and he has warned us about the people who work in it, and of course the highest possible risks and the scale of them, he would be prepared to public approval. support a pilot to properly evaluate the approach taken by the Government. My hon. Friend the Member for For that reason, I support the retention of new clause Darlington has said the same. Surely it would be sensible 1, which was introduced in the other place. It simply for the Minister to unite this Committee and unite the requires the Government to seek the approval of both House by running a pilot, with the support of the Houses of Parliament for any proposals for the alteration Opposition, to prove whether or not he is right. If the or reform of the service. Parliament must decide whether Justice Secretary is right, and the result is that the pilot or not Ministers can hive off the bulk of the work to works, we would all have to hold up our hands and profit-making organisations such as Serco and G4S, accept that. determine whether any such organisations can provide the service that is required, and above all ensure that the victims and the public at large are protected from the Mr Llwyd: Absolutely. That goes back to the point I offenders they supervise. made earlier, that there is consensus across this Committee. The Bill will introduce post-release supervision for When there is consensus the Government really should offenders serving less than 12 months in custody, as well get involved and try to find a way that is sensible and as making various changes to community orders and which takes into account the views of everybody across drug testing. I support those steps; in fact the broad the Committee. All we are talking about in this case is intentions of the Bill are to be welcomed from the piloting, and a slight delay to what the Ministry has perspective of addressing the scourge of reoffending termed an “aggressive timetable”. that blights our communities. We all want to get it right, and there is no dogmatic divide between the two sides of the Committee. We Jenny Chapman: Is it not slightly ironic that the really want to get this right, and one way would hopefully lowest reoffending rates are found among the offender be by having a pilot. If I were wrong in six months’ time, population that is supervised by probation trusts, which I hope I would be man enough to say so. I am sure other are clearly very good at what they do? We do not know Members and right hon. Members would do the same. whether it is supervision per se or supervision by probation To steamroll on with such an important matter of trusts, which is clearly excellent, that is having that policy—such a potentially dangerous area of policy—is dramatically beneficial effect on cutting reoffending. unwise, even cavalier. Alex Cunningham: That is very much the case. The The element of payment by results also causes concern. tough inspection regime that probation trusts have to There is no information available on how payment by undergo proves my hon. Friend’s point. results will work, or indeed any evidence that it will work. The proposals do not appear to have been costed. I am concerned about the fact that the scourge of Before the Minister asks me to cost something, let me reoffending blights our communities and ruins the lives say that I will have some figures for him by the end of of many people. I welcome actions that will better this Committee. The Government’s own risk assessment reform and reshape people’s lives in that context. That acknowledged that financial risk cannot even be assessed is not to say that the specific proposals in the Bill pass because of the lack of baseline information. There we muster in their current form. Although we all agree that are: we are taking financial risks as well as risking a steps must be taken to tackle reoffending, we should not danger to the public. contemplate taking action simply for action’s sake. Additional savings to the public purse, although embraced The evidence for piloting these measures before a with open arms when properly achieved, should not national roll-out appears to be overwhelming. It is take precedence over improvements to the services delivered. absolutely unarguable that it would be sensible to do so. We do not want to implement any programme or measure Rushing through changes risks compromising public that risks making matters worse because it is built on safety, and has the potential for a massive negative unstable foundations, yet that is the position that we impact on public protection. find ourselves in. Uncertainty about how the Government will have the probation service enact the requirements Alex Cunningham: Given my Scottish name, of the Bill is the central reason for supporting new Mr Robertson referred to me as Alec rather than Alex. I clause 1. adopted the name of Alex so that people realised that I There is widespread and understandable concern at am really called Alexander. However, it is still a pleasure the absence of detail surrounding the proposed reforms to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Robertson. to the probation service. I for one have received numerous 35 Public Bill CommitteeHOUSE OF COMMONS Offender Rehabilitation Bill [Lords] 36

[Alex Cunningham] 11 am In one area it is true that the probation service does letters of concern about the matter from constituents not work as well as we would like it to—reoffending. As from all walks of life, including a number from serving I said, we all agree that more needs to be done to reduce members of the Durham Tees Valley probation trust, reoffending rates, which remain far too high, but the which serves my constituency. They are understandably evidence shows that offenders discharged into the worried about the changes to the services they provide, responsibility of the probation service are less likely to not just out of personal interest but out of interest for reoffend than those who remain unsupervised and left the people in our community who must be properly to tread their own path. Probation contributes a huge protected. amount to making our communities safer, which is one Under the proposals for the probation service, supervision reason why I support moves to introduce supervision will be extended to offenders sentenced to less than for those receiving a prison sentence of less than 12 months 12 months, and up to 70% of probation work will be and supervision to aid rehabilitation that extends into contracted out to new private and voluntary providers. prisons as well. By definition, those providers will have no prior experience Probation is a front-line service that deals with public of offender management in that setting. Only those safety. In the realm of offender rehabilitation, a delicate offenders deemed to be high risk and those assigned to balance must be struck between public protection and the multi-agency public protection arrangements will the rehabilitation and reintegration of offenders into continue to be managed by the public sector; even then, mainstream society. The role of the probation service is that will be under the guise of a new national probation to maintain that balance. The proposals to restructure service rather than the current model of local probation the service, fragmenting the support and services provided, trusts introduced under Labour—a model that allows while adding layers of unnecessary bureaucracy, will the service to adapt to specific local needs by commissioning without doubt upset the applecart and flies in the face the services they see fit to tackle the problems they of what we know works best in offender rehabilitation: actually face. to establish stable and consistent contact with probation officers and to build the important day-to-day relationships. Meanwhile, under the plans, all offenders deemed to New clause 1 would build in a level of protection to be of low or medium risk will be contracted out to ensure that any future service is fit for purpose. non-public providers on a payment-by-results model that has not been tested in the UK or anywhere else in the world. If the Government have their way they will Jeremy Wright: I understand the point that the hon. hand over those multi-million pound contracts to the Gentleman is making about the importance of personal lowest bidder, without even consulting those of us who relationships between those who are supervised and represent the very people the proposals could put at those doing the supervising. To be clear, is his view that risk. New clause 1 would provide protection against a that relationship can work only if it is between an serious gamble that puts public safety at risk by planning offender and someone who works directly for the state? to roll out reforms that have not been adequately tested and are supported by no evidence. Parliament should decide who is best suited to deal with offenders, be they Alex Cunningham: My hon. Friend the Member for low, medium or high risk. Darlington, on opening the debate, made it clear that that was the case, and I agree with her position. We We should remember the fine work that our probation cannot simply have an easy fix to drive down costs services carry out around the clock, working with offenders and to pay for the new level of service proposed in the in prison and on the outside, whether they have been Government’s legislation. Anyone watching BBC’s recently released or were given community sentences. “Newsnight” last Thursday, 21 November, must have That work is so often overlooked yet is integral to the been as horrified as I was to hear stories of failure and well-being of safe communities. On the whole, our incompetence on an unimaginable scale by Serco, which probation service does a first-class job of rehabilitating successfully tendered to be the delivery partner of the offenders and reintegrating them into a life away from London probation trust for community payback services crime. throughout the capital from October 2012. The latest probation trust annual performance ratings, The community payback contract, which cost in the released in July this year by the National Offender region of £35 million at tender, gives Serco responsibility Management Service, support that view: 31 of the 35 trusts for community service throughout London, but the were adjudged to be performing well and the remaining “Newsnight” investigation found evidence of serious four trusts were classed as performing exceptionally mismanagement. So 1,362 time-sensitive offender records well. Two are in the north-east, including the Durham were not updated between 1 September and 6 October—a Tees Valley probation trust. That the probation service period of only five weeks—and during that time, was awarded the British Quality Foundation gold medal information was taking as long as five days to filter for excellence in 2011 highlights the fantastic job that it through the relevant channels, meaning that warning does. Such high-quality performance, however, is rarely letters and breach letters could not be issued with recognised, in part because the probation service is the sufficient time to allow probation officers to take the quiet man of the justice system in this country, receiving necessary actions within the eight-day time frame and much less media attention than cuts to front-line policing to enforce the appropriate sanctions. The updating of or a Prison Service bursting at the seams. The probation Delius to nDelius, a national records database, was service is no less important, and the figures provide without doubt a significant factor in the delays; manual proof—were any needed—that probation works, albeit paper records were forced to be kept for a week in with room for improvement. August during the update. 37 Public Bill Committee26 NOVEMBER 2013 Offender Rehabilitation Bill [Lords] 38

Staff confirmed to the “Newsnight” investigation and they do not have the capacity to do that. Instead, that the backlog existed before the changes took place. this work will be contracted out to private and voluntary That assertion, along with the size of the backlog, sector organisations. I suspect that we will see the same appears to be confirmed by the Ministry’s own statistics, kind of thing happening as with other contracts such as which estimate that 960 new offenders start on the the Work programme championed by the Justice Secretary community payback programme each month. It is also in his previous role. The big organisations will court the worth noting that the investigation reported that a voluntary sector, promise them subcontracts and backlog of 362 remained at the end of October, after partnership in exchange for their support and expertise, staff from the London probation trust had been called and then cream off their own profit margin before in to work additional overtime to help clear the decks. squeezing them till the pips squeak and we have a far less effective and motivated workforce working with us. Mr Slaughter: Is my hon. Friend saying to the Minister that the issue is not the definition of public or private Jenny Chapman: On the issue of probation trusts not sector, but the way in which those particular private being able to bid, does it not strike my hon. Friend as sector operators conduct their business, to provide absurd that those who have a good track record will not consistently poor and inadequate standards in whichever be able to take part, even though the payment-by-results field they are working? Whether for prison escort, the contracts will not be putting money at risk at all, Olympics or whatever, for a variety of reasons these because the reward element, which is all it is going to organisations tend not to perform to the high standards end up being, will be in excess of the fee element that that we have to expect and we have expected from the they need to spend to deliver the service? probation service. Alex Cunningham: It beggars belief. The fact that Alex Cunningham: My hon. Friend is correct. Is it not these companies will cream off their profit first before ridiculous that we have a situation in which an organisation they do anything else is important. They will not be has a £35 million contract but has to turn back to the concentrating on delivering the service; they will be probation service and ask probation service officers to concentrating on their shareholders. The important thing work overtime in order to clear up the organisation’s is that we have a professional service working with mess and help it out of a very difficult situation? If we offenders because if we do not have those, as well as had such a situation in the proposed new service and we professional people supervising the professionals who had to rely on more and more work being passed back are working with offenders, things can only go very to the probation service, we would see a system that badly wrong. would quickly grind to a halt. That would lead to more As I mentioned briefly, and as has been pointed out offenders on the streets, possibly not having any sanctions by hon. and right hon. Members, this step change is imposed upon them and, of course, that would put our proposed to take place without being properly piloted communities at risk as well. and without approval of Parliament. We must guard In addition to the shambles in London with that against that. Imposing a payment-by-results model on contract, “Newsnight”collected evidence to show incorrect probation services, as is the Justice Secretary’s plan, is information on attendance being recorded by Serco, untried and untested anywhere in the world. I have no with the corresponding cases being thrown out of court doubt that this is a huge risk. Pilots were set up in the as a result of evidence that was either incomplete, late Wales, Staffordshire and West Midlands probation trusts or of dubious quality. It is no wonder that probation with the intention of uncovering any shortcomings that officers have said that they lack any confidence in the may have needed to be identified and corrected before a data provided by Serco, and that the former Her Majesty’s future nationwide roll-out. Indeed, the Ministry’s own Chief Inspector of Probation, Rod Morgan, described press release of 25 January 2012 waxed lyrical under the the scenario as displaying a headline: “pattern of inaccuracy” “World leading probation pilots announced”. with sufficient evidence The then Minister, the hon. Member for Reigate, was “for someone to be taking a very close look”. quoted as saying: The upshot of these failings is that justice ultimately “These ground-breaking pilots will for the first time test how becomes difficult if not impossible to dispense. It is real freedom to innovate, alongside strong public, private and timely to remember that the community payback contracts voluntary sector partnerships, could drive significant reductions were supposed to be part of the Government’s blueprint in reoffending by those serving community sentences.” for reform of the probation services. If similar failings However, the shadow Secretary of State, my right hon. were to occur in probation, public confidence in the Friend the Member for Tooting (Sadiq Khan), was entire criminal justice system would be catastrophically right to note that the crux of the statement hinges on undermined and the consequences would be dire, yet just one word: “could”. the Government’s plans lay the groundwork for precisely The pilots were designed to be an opportunity to trial this eventuality, and without new clause 1 Parliament the model, learn from any mistakes on a small scale, would not even have a say on the detail of the changes. and make improvements where necessary to ensure that The proposals envisage a system in which offenders any changes are correctly designed before the model is sentenced to less than 12 months will be given that rolled out nationally. supervision. The probation service will, however, be None the less, in his first week in the job, the Secretary excluded from providing this supervision to low and of State cancelled the pilots and chose instead to pursue medium risk offenders, as entities bidding for such a full national roll-out based on a hunch that the policy contracts are required to be able to bear financial risk would work. His assurance, however, arrives at the 39 Public Bill CommitteeHOUSE OF COMMONS Offender Rehabilitation Bill [Lords] 40

[Alex Cunningham] Shortcomings in transforming the criminal justice system could be perilous—dangerous criminals could be left party alone. With the Government not deeming it necessary unsupervised, walking the streets unmonitored. That is to test the effectiveness of the plans, there is no supporting not a risk I would advocate. evidence to confirm his belief. We have only recently seen that the roll-out of universal The Secretary of State has chosen to play the role of credit, already much delayed, is having to be done even both judge and jury in deciding that the plans for more slowly than originally planned, as a result of probation trusts will reduce reoffending. At the same serious management and IT difficulties. time, he has managed to prioritise an ideological bent over confronting the long-term problems, preferring to Mr Slaughter: My hon. Friend is absolutely right to focus on driving towards a small state and cost savings point out the risk to the public. Does he agree that we instead of putting the rehabilitation of offenders and have seen such conduct in ending indeterminate sentences the protection of public safety at the front and centre of for public protection and the liberalisation of remand his policy. and other restrictions in tribunals in relation to remand? The teething problems that are inevitable in any such The Government talk a lot about the protection of the trial period, ranging from inexperienced providers and public, but when there is a choice between that and failures in communication to glitches in untested IT saving money and meeting financial targets, the latter systems, as outlined earlier by the right hon. Member always seems to take precedence. for Dwyfor Meirionnydd, will now have to be contended with all at once and on a national scale. In case we are in 11.15 am any doubt, the Government have repeatedly referred to pilots in Doncaster and Peterborough. It is true that Alex Cunningham: My hon. Friend has a long list that there were pilots in both locations, but the crucial factor he could have quoted to the Committee, although he is that they were prison pilots and therefore neither may well do that in a speech at some stage. It is suitable nor comparable in the current context. lamentable that the Government tend to mention money before public protection. Coincidentally, whereas the pilots in Doncaster and Peterborough were decidedly not intended to pilot changes Once again, the Secretary of State for Justice has for probation, it is interesting to recognise that, while declined to learn from the experience of colleagues in both pilots show some reasons for cautious optimism, the Department for Work and Pensions, but also from both missed their targets. That is precisely why it was the mistakes of his Department. useful to have pilots. Mistakes were made, but they will help to form the crucial learning curve that will become Paul Goggins: My hon. Friend is right to reflect on the basis of future improvements. That is what pilots the experience of the Work programme. Has he seen the are for. figures from September this year, which reflect what We should also bear in mind that such confident happened to the 19,800 offenders who were released self-assurance comes from the same Secretary of State from prison in 2012? Of them, only 360 had been found who introduced the Work programme, another payment- a job by June this year. by-results programme that has proven itself less effective in helping the long-term unemployed back into work The Chair: Can we bring discussion back to the than could have been expected from the absence of any amendments we are debating? We do not need to broaden intervention at all—it was quite literally doing worse the debate to other areas. than doing nothing at all. Despite spending billions of pounds on the flagship Alex Cunningham: I accept your ruling, Mr Robertson, Work programme, the accounts have been so atrocious but I am being educated by my right hon. Friend. I was that the Public Accounts Committee commented that not aware of the issue he raised. Part of the probation the service working in partnership with other organisations “providers have seriously underperformed against their contracts is to help offenders into work. If partners that the and their success rates” service will have to work with are having such an are worse than those of Jobcentre Plus—not that Jobcentre abysmal success rate, that is something for us to worry Plus does a bad job. about. That is particularly pertinent in the context of probation. I referred to the need of the Secretary of State for It was summarised neatly by The Economist, which Justice to learn from his Department’s failures, and that stated: relates to the language services contract, to which others “If the Work programme fails, the cost is higher unemployment; have alluded. The contract started in 2012 and was if rehabilitation of offenders fails, the cost is worse: more crime. branded “shambolic” by the Justice Committee. Which is why those now-disregarded pilots were set up in the first Coincidentally, the Committee also identified that the place.” Ministry did not have a sufficient understanding of the Put another way, if the Work programme fails, the complexity of court interpreting and translation work unemployed fail to get jobs, or the jobs prove not to be before it decided to put those services out to tender. sustainable. That outcome is far from desirable, with consequences extending far beyond the confines of any Mr Slaughter: I am sorry to interrupt my hon. Friend cursory, one-dimensional overview referencing production again, but this subject is dear to my heart. When the output or welfare bills. They are, however, in many language contract was originally let—it was a chaos ways, more palatable than the impact of similar failings and a farce and it was not performing—we were told by with the proposals to overhaul the probation service. successive Ministers that it was teething troubles. The 41 Public Bill Committee26 NOVEMBER 2013 Offender Rehabilitation Bill [Lords] 42 latest figures from last month show that the number of for all 21 new entities at the same time as reallocating trials that are failing and the number of interpreters some 250,000 offender cases and introducing new contracts who are not turning up is going up and the performance and partnerships. of the contract is going down again. The performance is There can be no doubt that that is a colossal task; about 80%, against a target of 97%. indeed, I would call it a recipe for disaster. The challenges highlight the fact that the Government are looking to create an artificial split between public and private Alex Cunningham: My hon. Friend asks a question, providers. They are adding unnecessary layers of and the next sentence of my speech answers it. The bureaucracy that are likely to detract from the efficiency ultimate outcome is translators failing to turn up for and effectiveness of probation services delivered by trials, causing cancellations. Those that did appear local probation trusts. As a result, the boundaries of on time frequently mistranslated the evidence. The responsibility between the national probation service circumstances around the language services contract and the private providers that will take over the government led the National Audit Office to recommend that the companies become blurred. That brings with it the Ministry of Justice likelihood of crossover and confusion. It is almost “implement future contracts so as to minimise transitional problems, inevitable that information will fall through the cracks for example through piloting”— and vital warning signs will be missed as a result of that funny word that, “piloting”— unnecessary divide. “and rolling-out new systems gradually”. That is before we consider the risks of losing That is sound advice and applicable beyond the bounds accountability. For instance, those responsible for of the Ministry, yet the Ministry is running the risk of supervising court orders are accountable to the courts delivering a parallel scenario of failures with the reform for the manner in which they fulfil their duties. However, of the probation service, only the consequences pose a if a judge has concerns about the supervision of a more direct threat to public safety. contracted-out court order commissioned by the Ministry I emphasise that new clause 1 would require the same of Justice but delivered by a private provider, whom do Secretary of State to outline his plans for the probation they ask to appear before them? In a similar vein, service before both Houses of Parliament, to demonstrate splitting responsibility for offenders between public and why he believed that they were for the best, and for them private sector providers based on their assessed risk to be fully and properly scrutinised before being approved. level completely overlooks the 25% of offenders whose As Lord Ramsbotham highlighted when making the risk level will fluctuate during their period of supervision. case in the other place for inserting the new clause, Those fluctuations are a major concern, and service Ministry of Justice officials have painted in tremendous providers will need to react swiftly in such circumstances, detail the extent and complexity that the programme of particularly in instances of risk elevation. According to change entails. the Government’s proposals, that would entail a change in responsibility from the private sector to the public The need for piloting should be obvious, although in sector, but it remains unclear who is responsible for case there was any doubt, the former chief inspector of pulling the triggers for that transfer process. Delays prisons made it abundantly clear that we cannot become simply cannot be tolerated because of the obvious risks complacent in the management of such an important involved. service. On top of the intricacy of the proposed changes— As we have seen with the community payback scheme not to mention their untested nature—Lord Ramsbotham that Serco is delivering in London, however, the extra pointed to the need for awareness of the enormous time fat in the form of additional bureaucracy will make the pressures that will be added into the mix. According to process cumbersome. If information is similarly the White Paper timetable, changes would have to be mismanaged in probation services, the risks to the public completed in a year’s time. That is no mean feat given will be unthinkable. The Secretary of State for Justice the sheer depth of reorganisation. A new operational has said that he can continue to deliver existing services model has to be implemented and tested. The new and his proposed new ones within current budgets, but I national probation service must be established, along cannot see how he can pay for all the extra bureaucracy with 21 community rehabilitation companies. New senior and let his allies in the private sector cream off a management teams for the national probation service substantial profit. It is the service that will suffer. Offenders and the Government companies must be recruited and will go unchecked and even unpunished, and the public appointed. Staff must be allocated into roles in the new will be put at greater risk. The Secretary of State wants organisations, while 18,000 staff will have to be transferred to dodge laying his policies before Parliament and press to new employers. That will all happen, currently, without ahead with his great private sector experiment, an the scrutiny of Parliament. experiment that has the potential to create a monster If that process was not confusing enough, probation that will wreak havoc with our criminal justice system. trusts are to have agreed the national and completely If the prospects of increased risk were not daunting functional split and identified the proportion of staff enough already, the Minister told the hon. Member for and assets to be allocated to the public sector or government South Dorset (Richard Drax), in response to his concerns companies. They are also required to implement the about risk and the movement of offenders between new operating model at the same time as remaining different categories and potentially service providers, contractually responsible for delivery by public sector that and competing functions, all the while serviced by a “when someone is categorised by the national probation service single corporate support. In real terms, officials will as moving from medium risk to high risk, they will stay with that have to allocate about 500 premises in whole or part to service. There will be no passing to and fro when that allocation the national probation service or government companies. process has taken place.”—[Official Report, 30 October 2013; They will have to establish corporate support functions Vol. 569, c. 1016.] 43 Public Bill CommitteeHOUSE OF COMMONS Offender Rehabilitation Bill [Lords] 44

[Alex Cunningham] a higher risk offender and then their risk category changes again from high back to medium, they would Is that really what the Minister meant? Would medium not transfer back to the community rehabilitation company. risk offenders who were subsequently categorised as There will not be the multiple transfers backwards and high risk remain with their private sector provider? I forwards that my hon. Friend the Member for South hope that he will address that point specifically, as his Dorset was referring to. statement has simply added to the confusion about the Government’s intentions and raised the stakes in relation to risk, and how and by whom offenders are managed. 11.25 am The Chair adjourned the Committee without Question Jeremy Wright: I will take the opportunity to do so put (Standing Order No. 88). now. If there is any confusion, I apologise. I thought I had made it clear that if a medium risk offender becomes Adjourned till this day at Two o’clock.