Orders of the Day — Criminal Justice and Court Services Bill

House of Commons, 14 November 2000.

Alan Haselhurst (Deputy Speaker, Saffron Walden)

I draw the House's attention to the fact that privilege is involved in Lords amendment No. 180. If the House agrees the amendment, I shall ensure that the appropriate entry is made in the Journal.

AIMS OF THE SERVICE

Paul Boateng (Labour, Brent South)

I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment

Alan Haselhurst (Deputy Speaker, Saffron Walden)

With this it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments Nos. 2, 5 to 10, 12, 16 to 24, 26 to 28, 30, 40, 83 to 86, 96, 97, 119, 120, 126 to 129, 131 to 134, 136 and 139 to 151.

Paul Boateng (Labour, Brent South)

The amendments are modest and inoffensive. They change the names of "local boards" to "local probation boards". In so far as it clarifies the functions and purposes of the boards, the change is welcome.

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

In my characteristically generous and eager spirit, I congratulate the Minister on what appears to be the latest in a series of U-turns. The right hon. Gentleman has developed a habit of inveighing violently against views that are critical of Government policy. When such views are expressed to him, he indicates that he has no intention whatever of changing his mind; but then he returns to the inner recesses of his ministerial office at Queen Anne's Gate and thereafter trogs back to the House to confirm that he has taken on board the sensible representations made to him and that he intends to alter Government policy accordingly. The right hon. Gentleman should not, however, be criticised for that; such a sign of flexibility is welcome. He will be aware—as, shortly, will the House—that the issue of the title of local probation boards was aired by my noble Friend Baroness Seccombe during the Bill's Committee stage in the other place on 2 October. That was precisely three weeks before this House returned to business. My noble Friend was quizzical about the Government's decision to refer to local probation boards simply as "local boards". She has been well known to me since 1985; she is of good Birmingham stock and is a most sensible individual. She found it extraordinary that the Government did not seem to want to designate the boards with a title that accurately described what their purpose and functions were to be. She thought it curious that the word "probation" was not included in the title, and suggested that something should be done about it. My noble Friend said that that phrase should be amended to read "probation board". The use of the phrase "local board" is not only confusing and meaningless, but could cause problems when contracting with other boards. In house— that is, among our own number— it may be understood, but to those outside, it would be ambiguous.

Norman Baker (Liberal Democrat, Lewes)

I realise that the hon. Gentleman is keen to celebrate his promotion to the Front Bench, on which I congratulate him, but why is he taking such a long time on amendments that the Government have accepted?

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

It is important that the House is aware of the purport of the arguments. I thought that Liberal Democrats were in favour of the proper exchange of views. I have already generously and in terms congratulated the Minister—for whose ability, as the right hon. Gentleman well knows, I have the highest regard—but that does not, in any sense, disqualify me from speaking about the merits of the amendments. Indeed, I have not merely an entitlement but an obligation to say something about this matter—not least because it represents a climbdown. I shall not be so unkind—although others might be—as to suggest that it is a humiliating climbdown, but it is a climbdown none the less. I find it disappointing that the hon. Member for Lewes (Mr. Baker), who is a notably independent-minded specimen in the House, should nevertheless choose to gang up with the Government in that way—

Alan Haselhurst (Deputy Speaker, Saffron Walden)

Order. Perhaps I am a stickler, but I think that "specimen" is not a very attractive word to use.

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

I readily withdraw, Mr. Deputy Speaker. My affection for the hon. Member for Lewes is boundless, so I readily concede. I shall not be guilty of that sin again. My noble Friend Baroness Seccombe concluded her remarks about local boards by saying: Many local boards exist, such as those of companies, banks and even the gas board. It is important to emphasise that the concerns that my noble Friend expressed on behalf of the official Opposition in the other House were shared by several noble Lords. I hope that the hon. Member for Lewes is aware that his noble Friend Lord Phillips came to the aid of my noble Friend on that occasion. He said: To refer simply to "local boards" without adding a qualifying adjective provides a recipe for confusion. He said—I cannot put it better myself—that the name "local boards" was totally unmemorable, forgettable and neutral. With a flourish, he added that some might say that it was even a little "Kafkaesque". The present name "local board" suggests nothing more and nothing less. During the debate, Lord Bassam, speaking for the Government, said that the amendment was unnecessary for a simple reason: calling the boards "local" boards emphasises their close relationship with the communities that they will cover.—[Official Report, House of Lords, 2 October 2000; Vol. 616, c. 1149–51.]

Tony McWalter (Labour/Co-operative, Hemel Hempstead)

I understand that the hon. Gentleman wants to gloat, but is he not overdoing it by concentrating on one word on which we all agree? Would not his time be better spent considering the issues on which there is profound and important disagreement?

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

The hon. Gentleman is right to want to get on to discuss important matters. However, I want to emphasise that the Government made the mistake in the other place of focusing exclusively on the importance of the word "local", to the detriment of consideration of the appropriateness of the inclusion in the title of the word "probation".

Tony McWalter (Labour/Co-operative, Hemel Hempstead)

indicated dissent.

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

The hon. Gentleman implies that there is no need for further debate on the matter. Conservative Members do not understand why the Government thought it so important to retain the word "local"—a proposition from which we do not dissent—but could not see the argument for the inclusion of the word "probation". After all, it is with probation that the bodies are concerned. That is why we were so insistent. We were told by the Government that each local board would include the word "probation" in its title and the geographical area that it was deputed to cover, but Lord Bassam did not think that it was necessary to include the word "probation" on the face of the Bill. We argued to the contrary and I think that the Minister now recognises that we were justified. I have already graciously welcomed his about-turn and, at the risk of embarrassing him further, I do so again. However, I emphasise to the hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. McWalter) the merit of arguing the points in this House and the other place. When we did that—this is the conclusive rejoinder to the hon. Gentleman's suggestion that this issue merits no discussion—we were told that the change to the title was not necessary. The change is necessary; it is practicable; it has been accepted; and I applaud that state of affairs.

Jackie Ballard (Liberal Democrat, Taunton)

I congratulate the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) on, I think, his first outing on the Opposition Front Bench. I know from when he and I first crossed swords in a television studio in 1992—when we both failed to get elected to this place—that criticism only encourages him. Therefore, I shall not comment on his speech. I do not recall much debate on this issue in Committee in this place, which shows that there are occasions when the revising role of the other House is worth while. No one in this House picked up this point. I very much welcome the flexibility that the Minister has shown and I promise him that, if he continues to be flexible, I shall continue to make short speeches.

Paul Boateng (Labour, Brent South)

I congratulate the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) on his well-deserved promotion to his current responsibilities. He characterised himself as being eager, but he also has a tendency to over-egg the pudding. That is the hon. Gentleman, and we would not have him any other way. I am glad that the House has found the amendments acceptable. I do not think that there is much more to be said

Paul Boateng (Labour, Brent South)

I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

Alan Haselhurst (Deputy Speaker, Saffron Walden)

With this it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendment No. 4.

Paul Boateng (Labour, Brent South)

The amendments advance the debate that we had in Committee. Hon. Members will recall a discussion of a semantic nature. We have taken into account the debate in the other place. Victims have always been at the heart of the Bill, and it seeks to ensure that the probation service, as a law enforcement agency, is bound to consider them. Victims' interests, needs and concerns are met day in and day out by probation officers as they carry out their important work, especially in the matter of public protection. Having heard the arguments and reflected on them, we are only too happy to accede to the amendments.

Ann Widdecombe (Conservative, Maidstone and The Weald)

Even the Minister of State did not manage to keep a straight face when he made his extraordinary defence of an indefensible position. Of course we are grateful to the Government for finally accepting the amendment, but it is a little incomprehensible that they should have resisted it right up to the wire and had to undergo a defeat in the other place. They were not at all willing to side with the victims in the way that the right hon. Gentleman suggests. It is difficult to believe the right hon. Gentleman when he says that the interests of victims are at the heart of the Bill because the Government resisted the proposition that the service should aim to ensure that offenders understand the consequences of their crimes and that they are rehabilitated, both of which would work overwhelmingly in the interests of victims. The penal system, of which the probation service is a part, has always recognised that retribution, deterrence and rehabilitation are the aims of punishment, but rehabilitation plays no part at all in the aims of the service as set out in the Bill, for which the Government fought right up until the last ditch in the other place. The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that addressing offending behaviour is a key requirement of people who seek parole. How much more important is it that those who remain in the community, moving among potential victims and generally at large and free to do as they please, should understand the effects of their offending on those who have suffered from it? How much more important must it be at that stage to rehabilitate rather than allow the offender to slide down the slippery slope to prison? It is not enough to say that such aims are generally understood. We should remember that the aim of the Prison Service is clearly stated at every prison gate—to help prisoners to lead useful and law-abiding lives. If the imperative is so great in the Prison Service that it has to be stated clearly at the gate of every prison, why is it so much less a consideration in the probation service that it should not be explicitly stated in the Bill? It is wrong to exclude from the Bill explicit recognition of victims and of redemption. I am glad that, late in the day, the right lion. Gentleman has accepted the need for that recognition, but he has offered no explanation of why the Government fought that to the last ditch in the other place. Why were they so bent on excluding the aims that offenders should understand the consequences of their crimes and should be rehabilitated? The right hon. Gentleman is still just about managing to keep a straight face. I suggest that he comes to the Dispatch Box and says that the Government are not interested in making those aims primary aims. Rather than pretending that those were the Government's aims all along, he should admit that they lost in the other place and have given the fight up as a bad job.

Jackie Ballard (Liberal Democrat, Taunton)

As I recall, the long debates that we had on this topic hinged on the difference between aims and functions. At one point, we had a rather Alice in Wonderland argument about which was primary—a function or an aim. I was never convinced that the Minister believed what he was saying about the difference between aims and functions. [Interruption.] I hope that that was not unparliamentary—I was not accusing the right hon. Gentleman of telling lies. I think that he knows what I mean. I was convinced, however, that he believes that one of the functions of the probation service is the rehabilitation of offenders, and that victims also have an important place in the system. I continue to argue—I am glad that at the end of the day we have won the argument—that it is important to put that up in the top line as an aim of the probation service. I welcome the conversion that has occurred in relation to the amendment.

Paul Boateng (Labour, Brent South)

I have heard what the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) and the hon. Member for Taunton (Jackie Ballard) said. The right hon. Lady might have been a little more gracious and generous in her remarks, but perhaps that is asking too much. She will have read the discussions that we had in Committee. She will know that rehabilitation has always been in the forefront of the work of the probation service. Probation officers work in this area day in and day out. She does them no service by saying that they need reminding of the importance of rehabilitation and victims. They do not need reminding; we do not need reminding. We are happy to accept the amendment. I commend it to the House.

FUNCTIONS OF LOCAL BOARDS

Paul Boateng (Labour, Brent South)

I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

Alan Haselhurst (Deputy Speaker, Saffron Walden)

With this it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments Nos. 13, 95, 99 and 102 to 105.

Paul Boateng (Labour, Brent South)

With the leave of the House, I shall take a little time to explain the background to the measures that we propose, which build on existing arrangements to protect the public. In introducing these measures relatively late in the day, we acknowledge the important public debate that took place following the tragic murder of Sarah Payne. All of us would want to pay tribute to Sarah's parents. Through this amendment and amendments Nos. 101 and 154, we have an opportunity to create a memorial for Sarah. This is a package of measures that can properly bear the name "Sarah's law". The amendments build on and strengthen arrangements for risk assessment and management of sexual and violent offenders by putting those arrangements on a statutory footing. They require the relevant agencies to inform the public about their arrangements and they provide for the Secretary of State to issue guidance about the exercise of the new statutory duty, including the content of information to the public. They also put on a statutory footing and extend a duty to consult and inform victims, where it is their wish, about the release arrangements for the relevant offender. We seek to build on the arrangements put in place by police, probation and other services. I pay tribute to the work that they do to protect the public against such offenders, who might be some of the most dangerous in the community. In proposing the measures today, we seek to act as quickly as possible to improve the range of measures available to the police and other services to deal with serious sexual offences. Earlier in the summer we set up a major review of the Sex Offenders Act 1997; it is in progress and it should be completed at the end of the year. Some of the aspects of the Act under consideration are complex and need proper consideration, but we believe that we should deal now with those measures that can be tightened quickly and effectively without waiting for the full review to be completed. The harm that sex offenders cause victims is at the heart of the new measures. As further evidence of our intention to extend provision for victims, we are placing a new duty on the local probation board that builds on existing good practice and extends it to a greater number of victims. It will be a requirement that the victims of sex and violent offenders be consulted about whether they want to comment on the terms of the offender's release and, if so, whether they wish to be informed of or propose themselves any conditions that relate specifically to them. Other measures, such as the proposed sex offender restraining order, will, although new, build on concepts in existing legislation. We ask the House to amend the Bill to include those new measures in memory of Sarah Payne, whose tragic death moved so many of us throughout Britain. It is important that we take this opportunity today to improve the protections available to the public, and we have done so. I commend the amendments to the House.

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

I associate the official Opposition with the tributes that the Minister has rightly paid. The Minister will know that the Payne family's home is in a neighbouring constituency to mine and in my county. Everyone in the area and, as the Minister said, throughout Britain, was appalled by the crime, and it is only right that the Government should take the opportunity to make certain changes. The Minister will appreciate that many later groups of amendments deal with related matters, so it might be more appropriate for me to deal in detail with the Opposition's response when we reach them. We recognise, however, that the Government see this group of amendments as part of a complementary series of amendments to address the issues raised by the Sarah Payne case and other earlier tragedies. The Opposition hope to build on the work done in Committee and in the other place. In dealing with such serious issues, both Houses of Parliament are often at their best. I am sure that when the Minister replies he will recognise that the matters were addressed seriously by all members of the Committee and by their Lordships. I do not wish to detain the House on this group of amendments because it would be more appropriate to discuss at length later amendments that deal in detail with sex offenders. There might be points of detail on which we disagree, particularly in the next group of amendments and in some later groups, but we hope that there will be a workable regime that will help to prevent any similar appalling crimes. We recognise that this is a matter that no Parliament can ever get completely right. Sadly, there are wicked and evil offenders out there. We must do our best to try to create a framework in which the innocent, particularly children, are protected. I hope that the Bill, as amended, will go some way to doing that. The Minister and his colleagues on the Treasury Bench were right to recognise the way in which the Bill could be used to make some helpful changes. We reserve judgment on whether more will be needed in this difficult area, on which I will say more later.

Jackie Ballard (Liberal Democrat, Taunton)

We, too, welcome the amendments. As the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins) said, the Government are right to take the opportunity to amend the law. However, they were also right to wait for an appropriate opportunity instead of making the wrong decision by overreacting in a knee-jerk response to a heated newspaper campaign and obvious public anxiety earlier this year. Some of the most important words in the clause are "risk assessment". Nothing can be risk free. We cannot give anyone a guarantee that there is no risk, but it is important to assess and manage the risk properly, monitor it and ensure that lessons are learned if anything sadly goes wrong. It is unfortunate that a long debate between the parties about the amendments now would hit the headlines, but because they have cross-party support and our debate has been brief, the press will not notice what we have done today.

Paul Boateng (Labour, Brent South)

The contributions of the hon. Members for Taunton and for Surrey Heath are characteristic of the calm and appropriately serious approach of the House and of the other place to the matter. It is vital that difficult and complex decisions about the nature of the information to be disclosed on sex offenders be considered on a case-by-case basis by the police and the probation service. It is equally true that parents and the public have the right to more information. We are providing information about the way in which sex offenders are managed in the community, the safeguards that are in place to protect them and the part that they can play in enforcing those safeguards. That is why we are creating a statutory duty for the police and probation services to establish arrangements for assessing and managing the risks that sex and violent offenders present. I welcome the fact that, in the contributions that we have heard, the House has expressed its approval of our approach.

Paul Boateng (Labour, Brent South)

I beg to move, That this House disagrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

Alan Haselhurst (Deputy Speaker, Saffron Walden)

With this it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendment No. 15 and the Government motion to disagree thereto, and Lords amendments Nos. 29, 53 and 54.

Paul Boateng (Labour, Brent South)

The Government amendments would create a generic category of approved accommodation, which include those hostels that are currently designated approved bail and probation hostels. That would remove distinctions between categories of hostels and enable all approved hostels to accommodate, when appropriate, offenders who are subject to drug treatment and testing orders, or licensed conditions, or offenders who, while not subject to statutory supervision, require enhanced supervision in residential accommodation to assist their rehabilitation. The Opposition amendments, would—doubtless inadvertently but nevertheless certainly—wreck the ability of the service to provide accommodation in hostels. They would prevent accommodation of a smaller number of dangerous offenders, who are no longer on licence, but whose accommodation in approved hostels is clearly in the interests of public protection. Greater flexibility, which the Government amendments would provide, is necessary in accommodating those on DTTOs by enabling them to be housed in any approved accommodation while undergoing treatment directed by the courts. The supportive regime in approved hostels increases the likelihood of such unstable offenders completing the treatment element of their orders. That increases the effectiveness of sentencing and improves public protection. The right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald and I have debated hostels late at night. I appreciate the seriousness with which she takes their contribution to public protection. They have an excellent record of dealing with difficult and dangerous offenders. We want to build on that success by increasing the flexibility and usage of approved hostels. We thus aim to provide for increased public protection and a reduction in reoffending, especially among those on whom the court has imposed DTTOs or who are on licence. The amendments to clause 24 are consequential on the creation, in clause 9 as amended, of a generic category of hostel. However, the Opposition amendments would destroy the ability of the service to undertake such work. Amendment No. 14 would remove the word "accommodation". That would call into question the ability of the service to provide accommodation in hostels. That cannot have been their intention, but that is the effect of their amendment. Amendment No. 15 would restrict the use of hostels to those currently on bail, on licence or serving a community sentence. The vast majority of residents will be in one of those categories, but a small number of dangerous offenders, who have been released from prison but not on licence, are currently accommodated in hostels, and rightly so. The supervision provided in hostels, including the operation of a curfew, is such that the public are much better protected than they would be if offenders were left to their own devices in the community. It is essential that we retain the ability to put dangerous offenders in such accommodation. I urge the House to accept the Government amendments made in the other place, and to reject amendments Nos. 14 and 15.

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

I make no apology for spending a little time on this matter. My hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) have made it clear that on a number of occasions during the consideration of the Bill in the other place the Government suffered what can only be described as humiliating defeats, and this matter was one such occasion. When the other place divided, 180 noble Lords and noble Ladies voted for the Opposition amendment, which was ably moved by my noble Friend Baroness Blatch, and only 126 of their Lordships were prepared to support the Government. That was but one of a series of substantial defeats on the Bill in the other place. Their Lordships felt so strongly about the Bill because they believed that the Government had not paid sufficient attention to the serious concerns about supervision in hostels. I hear what the Minister says about the unintended consequences of the amendment of my noble Friend Baroness Blatch, but we feel strongly that their Lordships were right to press this matter. The Minister's noble Friend the Lord Bassam of Brighton got very confused—to put it at its best—in his attempt to respond to the serious concerns of my noble Friend. He talked about resolving practical matters in a practical way, and said: That should be done in a fair-handed way. I am not sure whether he intended to say "fair-minded" or "even-handed", but it showed how confused he was in response to these serious matters. He has sadly been nicknamed Lord Climbdown. Just before the vote in the other place, my noble Friend asked: What in my amendment would legally preclude the most dangerous people from being supervised in the accommodation? The noble Lord has not answered the question. I am pressing this point because the noble Lord's response has been based on that premise; namely, that my amendment would be dangerous … I am not satisfied with the response that I have received from the noble Lord.—[Official Report, House of Lords, 31 October 2000; Vol. 618, c. 828–30.] I am afraid that that was all too typical of the reasons why Members in the other place made so many changes to the Bill. As we said repeatedly in Committee—the hon. Member for Taunton (Jackie Ballard) joined us in making this point—this is a bad Bill drafted in much haste with many matters needing amendment. We pressed amendments in Committee, and as my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham and my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald have made clear, in the other place the Government were dragged kicking and screaming into conceding some of the sensible points that we had made, some of which were supported by the Liberal Democrats. The Government have finally accepted the importance of our points. I remind the Minister that many hon. Members, including some Labour Members, expressed concerns in what was a detailed debate on issues to do with bail and probation hostels. Many hon. Members—some in Committee—raised constituency cases in which serious problems had arisen in relation to bail and probation service hostels. I especially remember powerful points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Luff), who spoke from experience of a hostel in his constituency. I have experience of a hostel in my own constituency that caused a number of problems, and similar concerns were raised in another place. We think that Lady Blatch was right to press the issue of supervision, and we hope that the Government will address the point. We shall not ask the House to divide, because we do not want the Government even to seek to allege that we are doing any damage to the provision of accommodation; but we do think that the issue is serious. We want the Minister finally to concede, when he replies, that the Government recognise—and will place firmly in regulations, even if they are not prepared to include it in the Bill—the need for those who will run bail and probation hostels to be required to ensure that, at every stage, dangerous and potentially dangerous residents are supervised. It should not be simply a matter of accommodating them. Labour Members who have had practical, sharp-end experience of such hostels—which they mentioned in Committee—know very well that supervision is a vital element in any hostel. All our law-abiding constituents want to be given the comfort of knowing that anyone sent to such a hostel will be supervised morning, noon and night. If the Minister is not prepared to say that the Government will find a way of ensuring that supervision is clearly written into the obligations of those running hostels, the next time an outrage, crime or tragedy is perpetrated by someone who is resident in a hostel but has not been properly supervised, the Government will have to take the blame. I do not want to be a Cassandra crying in the wilderness, but these are serious issues. As the Minister said, they were addressed seriously in Committee, and we want to hear that the Government will address them seriously. As I have said, we shall not divide the House, but we hope that the Government will take what we have said, and what I expect the Minister to say shortly, in the spirit in which I have made these serious points.

Paul Boateng (Labour, Brent South)

I did not think the spirit in which the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins) presented his arguments did justice to the serious and important debate in which we engaged in Committee—to which the hon. Gentleman made a valuable contribution—and the attack on my noble Friend Lord Bassam was utterly unwarranted.

Ann Widdecombe (Conservative, Maidstone and The Weald)

Oh no it wasn't.

Paul Boateng (Labour, Brent South)

Oh yes it was. "Even-handed" and "fair-minded" are not terms that spring to mind in characterisation of the hon. Gentleman's contributions, so he really ought to take care before casting aspersions on my noble Friend—who, as the hon. Gentleman will discover if he reads Hansard, valiantly tried to put Lady Blatch right when she was insisting on moving immediately to a vote on an amendment that included the phrase " any time", because it would have prevented the accommodation of dangerous offenders not on licence. All Opposition Members know the importance of ensuring that we can accommodate that small but dangerous group, regardless of whether they are on licence. The hon. Gentleman rightly does not push Lady Blatch's proposal to a vote, because to do so would undermine the purposes of public protection. He knows that, and he ought to have had the generosity of spirit to admit it. Clause 9 ensures that all who are accommodated in hostels are there for supervision or rehabilitation. Supervision, in relation to dangerous offenders or ex-offenders, lies at the heart of all that the probation service does in such hostels. We need to do more to give more recognition to the important work that hostels do. I am glad that the amendment will not be pressed to a Division, and urge our amendments on the House.

FUNCTIONS OF INSPECTORATE

Jack Straw (Labour, Blackburn)

I beg to move, That this House disagrees with the Lords in the said amendment. This is the first opportunity I have had to join my right hon. Friend the Minister of State in congratulating the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) on his appointment. Let me deal with the drafting—the technical reasons why the amendment should not be accepted—before dealing with the substantive issue. Technically, it is very defective. As the words in brackets suggest, it would lay down in law the impossibility of merging the functions of the Chief Inspector with those of Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Prisons. As drafted, it would not achieve that. Let me now turn to the substantive issue, on which I hope to reassure the House. The power of direction for which clause 7 provides enables the Secretary of State to give directions to the probation service. It has nothing to do with the Prison Service, and it would therefore have no effect. I have spent rather more years in opposition than any Opposition Member.—

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

Not long enough.

Jack Straw (Labour, Blackburn)

Too long—although I can tell the hon. Gentleman that 18 years provides good training. Anyway, having spent some time in opposition, I do not criticise the Opposition for the fact that their amendment is technically defective. Nevertheless, I hope they will accept that it is. Let me proceed to the substantive issue: whether it would be appropriate to merge the inspecting functions of the chief inspector of prisons with those of the chief inspector of probation.

Simon Hughes (Liberal Democrat, North Southwark and Bermondsey)

May I return to the question of the drafting? I understand that the amendment may have technical deficiencies, but I think the Home Secretary's argument was that because clauses 6 and 7 deal with the inspectorate of the probation service, the formulation allowing the option of a merger would not work. That is at best arguable, and, as the Government have not—I think—offered any drafting alternative, I hope the right hon. Gentleman does not consider his technical objections to be related to the substance even of the drafting. There may be a technical problem, but according to my reading, it is not a substantive technical problem—although there is a debate about that.

Jack Straw (Labour, Blackburn)

I shall come to the substantive issue, which is the important part of this point. I hope to provide reassurance to the House, not least by reference to a written answer to a question tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Corby (Mr. Hope) which I gave earlier today. The Lords amendment, which relates only to the functions of local probation boards, would not achieve the desired effect. The Secretary of State would not be prohibited from using the existing statutory provisions—the Prison Act 1952, as amended. They relate to the inspector of probation and therefore allow a single person to combine the functions of both posts. I come to the substance of the matter. On 9 June in a written answer, I told the House that I was delighted that Her Majesty had consented to extend the appointment of the chief inspector of prisons, Sir David Ramsbotham, until 2001. I added that Sir David has made a great contribution to our shared goal of ensuring that prisoners are held securely in safe, decent and healthy establishments. I am pleased that he will continue in his role beyond the expiry date of his original appointment. Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Probation, Sir Graham Smith, also retires close to the end of July 2001. I added that aligning the dates when both inspectors are to retire, and hence when both posts would become vacant, would give the Government flexibility in considering how best to ensure that the arrangements for inspection of prisons and the probation service best support closer working between the services as well-ensuring that the individual services continue to be inspected rigorously and independently as they have been. I shall be making a further statement to Parliament on this in due course.—[Official Report, 9 June 2000; Vol. 351, c. 392–93W]. On 27 July, I announced to the House that I would publish a consultation paper setting out a choice of options for drawing the work of the two inspectorates together. That document, which is entitled "Inspecting the Work of the Prison and Probation Services: Options for the Future", was published by my right hon. Friend the Minister of State in early August and placed in the Library. It sets out the current arrangements and four options: maintaining current arrangements, establishing terms of reference for the inspection of joint working, sharing inspectors between the two inspectorates, and a joint chief inspector for prisons and probation. The consultation period ended on 31 October. We told the consultees that their responses would be made public and placed in the Library, unless they objected, and I am making arrangements for that. However, it may help if I summarise those responses, as I have in the written answer that I gave earlier today, and say what decisions have been taken. A majority of consultees favoured some change, including the establishment of terms of reference for the inspection of joint working between the criminal justice agencies and the sharing of inspectors between the inspectorates. By contrast, only small minorities were in favour of either the status quo or the appointment of a single joint chief inspector for prisons and probation. During the consultation exercise, a helpful scheme was suggested by Her Majesty's chief inspectors of constabulary, the Crown Prosecution Service, the magistrates courts and the probation and prison services to inspect practice across their boundaries systematically. That scheme, which I hope commends itself to the House, has much to recommend it and the consultation exercise also suggests that it will command broad support. It is therefore the option that I propose to pursue, along with the arrangements canvassed in the consultation exercise for bringing the work of the inspectorates much closer together. As I made clear in my June answer, we shall have an opportunity to establish new arrangements when both inspectors retire next July. For completeness, it may help if I refer to the concluding paragraph of my written answer. Sir David and Sir Graham have plainly made significant contributions to raising standards in the prison and probation services. I am grateful to them for their work, and I am sure that that is reflected by the House as a whole. In view of the retirements in July next year, I shall advertise both chief inspector posts in the new year. My answer does not refer to the terms of reference of the appointments, but plainly they will take account of the new arrangements for joint inspections of the kind proposed by the five inspectorates to which I referred. In view of my substantive remarks, I understand some of the anxieties raised in the other place about a single joint inspectorate, and it was right to consult both Houses of Parliament as well as those outside who are interested in the future of the inspectorates. We have run a genuine consultation exercise and have reached conclusions based on how best to take the services forward. I hope that they will command wide support and that the House will accept both the spirit in which I have moved the motion to disagree and its consequence

Ann Widdecombe (Conservative, Maidstone and The Weald)

I thank the Home Secretary for the tone in which he discussed this important Lords amendment. I see considerable merit in the proposal for a joint inspectorate. Indeed, in the longer term, I see merit in joining the two services. Both serve the aims of criminal justice, but, regrettably, can often pull against each other because, rather than running as a seamless whole, they work as distinct bodies. Furthermore, both provide services that would be better dealt with as part of a seamless whole. For example, our prisons run offending behaviour courses that seek to address drug, alcohol and gambling addictions and temper management. However, the Prison Service often operates in isolation on those courses and people who leave prison have no means of support to implement the strategies that they have been taught. If the services acted more seamlessly, much more aftercare could be provided. I genuinely see merit in the Home Secretary's proposals and would not want him to think that I lightly dismiss them and his reasons for not accepting the amendment. I can travel quite a long way with him, but I am sure that he accepts that there has been understandable unease in another place and that the consultation suggests that such unease is even more widespread. Therefore, further reassurances are necessary if he is to convince another place that the safeguard that it proposes should not be implemented. For example, the chief inspectors say that only about 25 per cent. of the work is joint and, therefore, the overwhelming majority of that to be inspected would not fall in such a category. Some of the work carried out between the two services is very different. For example, the Prison Service has a major duty to prevent escapes and security is an important aspect of the inspector's work, as is the provision of a humane regime. Slopping out, time out of cell, visiting facilities, bullying and purposeful regimes are not mirrored in the work of the probation service. Therefore, it is arguable that they deserve separate inspection. However, there was an underlying suspicion in another place that any merger could simply be a cost-cutting measure designed to save the Chancellor money, rather than to promote excellence in inspection. I shall certainly draw to the attention of my right hon. Friends in another place the Home Secretary's comments about the deficiency of the safeguard that they have inserted, but they were seeking to ensure that such a measure could not happen by stealth and that if the right hon. Gentleman—or, indeed, any of his successors—decided to go ahead with such a merger in future, he or his successor would have to return to Parliament for approval and, therefore, would be subject to the full rigours of scrutiny in both Houses. That being no bad thing, and given the Government' s regrettable tendency sometimes to ignore the House, I find that, on balance, I must disagree with the right hon. Gentleman's disagreement, although I do not want to imply that I would never support—or, indeed, propose—such a merger. I commend the protection of parliamentary scrutiny to the House and, therefore, I agree with their Lordships in the said amendment.

Simon Hughes (Liberal Democrat, North Southwark and Bermondsey)

I sense a conviction about the conclusion that the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) had a little difficulty arriving at. I thank the Home Secretary for the timetable, by which we have received the written answer in advance of the debate. That is obviously sensible and helpful. When I started my job for my party, I was entirely neutral about such matters; I had no pre-conceived view about whether there should be one inspectorate or two. Therefore, I undertook the same exercise as the Government have properly done—namely, I looked for myself, listened to people and sought to form a view according to the information that I was given. In that context, I own up to the fact that I now know much more about the prison inspectorate than about the probation inspectorate, both of which are highly respected. Indeed, both chief inspectors are well regarded, and the House will want to pay tribute to both, as the Government have done. I say that because I am one of the few Members of Parliament who have had the privilege of spending two days with the inspectorate on a recent inspection of Armley prison, Leeds. That inspection was extremely well done and highly regarded by the prison staff, the management and the inmates. I thank those who facilitated my presence: the inspectorate team and their advisers; the prison management; the new governor of Armley, who was very welcoming, as were her staff; and the prisoners, who, at their instigation, allowed me to sit in, for example, on a sex offender treatment session—obviously, entirely respecting confidentiality—so that I could see how such things proceed. From that and the other prison visits that I have taken part in since starting my job, I have no doubt that the regime and methods are extremely effective for routine and ad hoc inspections. I share the prisons Minister's view on a controversial issue. For example, as a result of the ad hoc inspections at Brixton—a prison which he and I know relatively well from our present and previous roles—he was right to conclude that the regime could not continue without a threat of severe change. That inspection was largely prompted by complaints, which led to the Minister's visit and decision, so the process appears to work, and I pay tribute to the system. The Home Secretary was absolutely fair in saying that it is logical to extend the appointments of the occupants of both posts so that they end at the same time, providing the flexibility to consider whether there should be a combined post. I do not dissent from that sensible proposal. There is now a process, to which the Home Secretary has alluded, that will allow both posts to be considered complementarily. I thank the Home Secretary for undertaking the consultation process. We should thank him for his response to that process; it shows that he listened. He and I occasionally have our run-ins—we even had a mini run-in yesterday—but I hope that I have never said that he does not listen and deal with the arguments. He and his colleagues are always fair in that respect. The consultation has been well carried out in this case. On balance, a persuasive case was put to the Home Secretary. Clearly, the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald was persuaded by it. 6.15 pm I shall cite some examples—first, the experience of people of great competence and experience across all parties who argued for the separation of the inspectorate. In the other place, Lord Windlesham and Lord Hurd, a former Home Secretary, were clear about their views. Among my colleagues, Lord Dholakia, who has huge experience of the Prison Service and of rehabilitation, was clear about his view. There is much weight of experience to suggest that the inspectorates should be kept separate. I give considerable weight to someone who has been prayed in aid—namely, the Bishop of Lincoln, who is the bishop to the prisons. I have known him since he was my college chaplain at university and greatly respect him for his common sense and straightforwardness. He concluded that the inspectorates should remain separate. A host of the great and the good, and the competent, has come to the same view. I shall not repeat the comments of the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald, but there are clearly issues that are expressly to do with custody. The prison regime suggests that much work needs to be done. There is no doubt that the prisons inspectorate has a huge amount of work to do. The Prison Service needs a lot of work and improvement. No one in any of the parties would doubt that the service needs external assessment to keep people up to the mark. Sir Stephen Tumim and Sir David Ramsbotham have been very good at independently criticising the Prison Service and constructive about how to proceed. However, that exercise is wholly different from inspecting what only sometimes overlaps with the work done by the probation service. The probation service has much more natural liaison with many other agencies, such as the health service, housing and social services, the youth service, the education service and the voluntary sector dealing with drugs and alcohol rehabilitation and so on. All that is different in style and character from dealing with the in-house management of the Prison Service. Therefore, I reached the same view as that which most peers, the Home Secretary and—for the time being, at least—the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald have reached: the inspectorates should be kept separate. The amendment, whether or not it is perfectly drafted, would prevent the policy being changed without Parliament taking that decision. The strength of Parliament's view has been—and the clarity of the conclusion reinforced that view—that the amendment is necessary. Clearly, concern has been expressed in both Houses. The Home Secretary's preferred option clearly has much to commend it, and I accept that it came from the consultation process. It appears that the proposal should be acceptable to the inspector of constabulary, the Crown Prosecution Service, magistrates courts, the probation service and the prisons. Of course, some of their work needs to be done together. One of the lessons that I learned at Armley the other day was that the procedure for moving people from prison to the outside world still does not work well. That is not a matter of political dispute. I shall not pretend to know many cases, but Armley prison does all sorts of things. It is one of the biggest prisons in the country and acts as a local prison, so prisoners go there on remand and then serve a short period after their conviction. Sometimes the periods are very short—six weeks, or three or six months. I think that the inspection, which was carried out only a couple of months ago, showed that no one who had been a remand prisoner and then served a short period of imprisonment before their release received any pre-release preparation whatever. Some of those people will have broken their drug or alcohol habits inside; others will have had anger problems and been on a course, or have had a history of sex offending, but there was no preparation for their release because they were short-sentence prisoners. As in the films, they walked through the door into the world with their bags in their hands, but without any preparation. That system will not stop reoffending. Just as, in the health service debate, the link between health and social services is so important, we need to make that link. That means that there needs to be collaboration, but prison and probation, inside and outside, custody and relative freedom are different things. I am glad that the Home Secretary and the Government have said that there will be two separate inspectorates. Our amendment—which, with the right hon. Lady, we will press to the vote—will, I hope, flag up the fact that we want that decision to be changed only by Parliament, not by the Executive without parliamentary authority.

Jack Straw (Labour, Blackburn)

I am grateful to the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) and the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) for the way in which they have made their points. I am glad that the decisions on the future of the inspectorate, which I have announced today by way of written answer, appear to have wide support in the House. I do not disagree with much of what the right hon. Lady said in her opening remarks—certainly her point about the way in which the Prison Service and the probation service pull against each other. We need to get them to operate more as a seamless whole. I advance an argument not for having a joint inspector, but for recognition of the need for the two services to work much more closely together. Some functions of the probation service are very different from the functions of the Prison Service. There is a substantial difference between the physical incarceration of a category A long-term prisoner and the preparation of a pre-sentence report on a woman who will not face custody, but has severe problems of mental illness—but there is an increasing overlap in the middle. There is an overlap partly because of the need to ensure better connection between that part of the sentence which is served in custody and that part which is served in the community, for all the reasons that the right hon. Lady and the hon. Gentleman have mentioned. We need to ensure, say, on drug treatment that there is proper connection. What was once a clear dividing line between punishment in custody and punishment in the community is now much fuzzier at the edges. For quite a long time, under successive Governments, the Prison Service has allowed people who are in its custody out on temporary release or on licence. It has allowed them, for example, to be in custody, but within open conditions, on trust. The probation service increasingly has a role of enforcement, which in some cases can literally involve the person being confined to a particular area: for example, under home detention curfew or under enforcement provisions of various orders. Therefore, as I say, at the extremes there are differences. In the middle, there is increasing overlap. Nothing has been done by stealth. I find that part of the argument extraordinary—[Interruption.] It has been suggested that we had better accept the proposal to stop things happening by stealth, just in case. I understand, but nothing has been done by stealth. I understood the unease that was expressed in the other place. I think that we have dealt with that. I understand the reasons why both Opposition parties want to put down a marker on the issue, but, even if the amendment were passed, it would have no effect. The arrangements that I am putting in place would, I imagine, last in any event for some years. Apart from anything else, no one would wish to be appointed to those important posts without some clarity and certainty about that, but I do not imagine for a second that a future Secretary of State would ever seek to make changes without coming to the House and getting its approval one way or another.

ESTABLISHMENT OF THE SERVICE

Jane Kennedy (Labour, Liverpool, Wavertree)

I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

Michael Lord (Deputy Speaker, Central Suffolk and North Ipswich)

With this it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments Nos. 32 to 38, 55 and 56.

Jane Kennedy (Labour, Liverpool, Wavertree)

The assurances that I sought to give in Committee did not allay the fears of the officers doing the work. However, the issue was debated fully in another place, and the amendments—especially those on clause 15—address the concerns expressed. I shall not, therefore, detain the House by elaborating further. The points raised previously were clear, and the concerns were expressed in measured and thoughtful terms. Anyone reading Hansard will be impressed by the detail involved and by the conclusions reached.

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

I am sorry to say that I want to spend some time examining this matter. A lot was said in another place, not least by my noble Friend Baroness Hanham, who raised the concerns—to which the Parliamentary Secretary referred—that we had expressed in Committee. There continue to be many concerns, as the Parliamentary Secretary has fairly conceded, among those at the sharp end of the new service as to what effects the Government's proposed changes will have on them and on the way in which they conduct their business. I am relieved that the Government have at last recognised that not only do the official Opposition and the Liberal Democrats have these concerns, but that they are widely shared by those who have to carry out the difficult work involved with family welfare connected to the courts. Since the Committee, I have had personal discussions with several people working in the guardian ad litem service. At a successful and pioneering magistrates court open day in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr. Malins), I was approached by people from the court welfare service and the guardian ad litem service. They told me that they were concerned that they would be the subject of ridicule because of the Government's choice of the new name, CAFCASS. I had not put that thought into their minds. I do not suppose that they were even aware that we had raised that issue both on Second Reading and in Committee. However, that was proof positive, if proof were needed, that the official Opposition's concerns that the new service would be ridiculed as "carcass" had filtered through to those at the sharp end. Nothing to do with the courts should ever be the subject of ridicule, but this was confirmation that those who are doing the job share our concerns. The Parliamentary Secretary finally recognises that there are concerns, and we welcome that as a small concession. In another place, Baroness Hanham came across another possible interpretation of the rather inelegant and ugly acronym that the Government have chosen. She said on 31 October: It is also horribly easy to slip from saying "CAFCASS" into saying "Kafkaesque", a connotation which would be unfortunate in the extreme. It is extraordinary that the same point that my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) made was raised in another place in relation to another aspect of the Bill. It may become known as the most Kafkaesque Bill that even this Government have ever introduced. 6.45 pm Baroness Hanham also said: I am told that magistrates and those working in the new service believe that, far from enhancing its stature, the acronym will bring it and them into disrepute. The full title of the new service is also cumbersome, even if it is not abbreviated. She is absolutely right. She pointed out: Children and family court advisory and support service" is a great mouthful. It is no more descriptive of what is involved than the much simpler "family court child welfare service"— the alternative which we proposed in another place— which is well understood and respected. At least the letters FCCWS cannot be shortened into anything other. There is much in a name—pride, identification, professionalism. [Interruption.] It is all very well for the hon. Member for Lewisham, East (Ms Prentice) to be twittering from a sedentary position, but she should recognise that these are serious points, and were regarded as such by her noble Friend Lord Bach. I know from having conducted cases against him at the Bar that he always takes such issues seriously. Lord Bach said that if a name similar to that of one of the three services that the Government were proposing to amalgamate into the new service were chosen, it would send a negative message to the other services. That is nonsense and a minor point compared with the dangers of ridicule. We find it surprising that Lord Bach said: It may be that the noble Lords will feel that to have "welfare" in the title is a mistake.—[Official Report, House of Lords, 31 October 2000; Vol. 618, c. 849.] The services are all, by their very nature, welfare services. In family court cases, the welfare of the children is the first and paramount consideration. All Labour Members who have ever dealt with family law cases will know that that is a term of great respect and a hallowed phrase. It is hallowed by precedent and handed down from leading cases, so that everyone who has ever practised family law in the past 20 or 30 years knows that that phrase is the starting point. That is why we feel so strongly about the matter. We are still very concerned. Baroness Hanham and others who spoke in the debate were right to discuss this matter and several of our concerns were taken further. At this late stage, the Government have started to move in our direction and made concessions, even though they had to be dragged kicking and screaming to do so. We hope that by accepting the Lords amendments or, at least, by accepting the spirit of the argument, the Government will think about promoting other more sensible names for the new service. I hope also that the points raised by the Earl of Listowel in the debate will be taken into account. It is important to recognise that, whichever party we represent, we are all concerned to ensure that the welfare service supports the courts and works for children and families. That is crucial, and if the Bill promotes that, it will be helpful. However, there is a risk that if these services—and the hard-working, dedicated people working in them—are brought into ridicule and disrepute, it will do harm. That has been our concern at every stage, as I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will have the grace to recognise.

Jane Kennedy (Labour, Liverpool, Wavertree)

With all due respect, and without wanting to denigrate the sincerity with which the hon. Gentleman holds his views, which he has expressed at every opportunity as we have debated the Bill, I believe that the 1,800 staff who will come together in April from the three different services to form the Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service deserve better than to have their important new role reduced to an argument about the name of the service. As my noble Friend Lord Bach said, the name Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service describes exactly the role of the new service. It will represent the interests of children in family court proceedings. In bringing together the three strands of the service, we expect CAFCASS to reduce delay and institute a more child-focused service that the courts can rely on when they consider the serious and sensitive issues that these officers deal with in supporting the work of the courts in arriving at their conclusions. The courts' decisions affect children and families at some of the most critical points of their lives. It is important to recognise the contribution that these staff already make and the contribution that we expect them to make as they come together to form the new service. I have to disappoint the hon. Gentleman. I must resist his entreaties to reconsider the title. If, in the future, someone suggests a name that is snappy and cannot be reduced to ridicule in any way, I may be persuaded to consider it, but as matters stand, the name has been widely accepted by those working in the three services and will remain. I have not heard any concerns from those family court practitioners whom I have met. I hope that the House will join me in welcoming the move made in the other place to recognise the concerns surrounding the definition in clause 15 and to support us in establishing a service that will be widely welcomed in the family courts.

DEFINITIONS

Jack Straw (Labour, Blackburn)

I beg to move, That this House disagrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

Jack Straw (Labour, Blackburn)

This raft of amendments raises an important issue about the management of the service. It has been a matter of disagreement in the other place, although I think that it was less so here when it was first discussed. It is important to put on record what has been agreed by all parties, which is that we should move from the current position of having 54 local probation services, with the consequent difficulties in national co-ordination and management, to a national service—the National Probation Service is a clear and unambiguous title—organised nationally but delivered locally through 42 different probation areas that are coterminous with the police force areas. In the past three and a half years, we have moved to ensure that each of the criminal justice agencies works within the police force area or, in the case of the Prison Service, within the Government region containing a whole number of those police force areas.

Simon Hughes (Liberal Democrat, North Southwark and Bermondsey)

A Welsh colleague has asked me to ask whether the current arrangements will move from having separate services in Dyfed and Powys to having one service for the area of the Dyfed Powys police force. As the Prison Service has both geographical regions and special groupings of prisons, will the Home Secretary say something about how it will not fit tightly into the new structure with an entirely regional probation service?

Jack Straw (Labour, Blackburn)

The number of probation services is moving from 54 to one, organised under the separate police force areas. In Wales, there are currently four police force areas: North Wales, Dyfed Powys, South Wales and Gwent. The probation services would be coterminous with those. The hon. Gentleman asked about the organisation of the Prison Service into regions. There was an interesting exhibition about that at the Prison Service conference two years ago. I was sceptical about whether it could organise itself into regions in line with the Government regions, but it has done so. Thanks to the work of my noble Friend the Lord Chancellor and his departmental colleagues, there has been considerable progress—against what had previously thought to be wholly immutable boundaries— towards reorganising the Crown court circuits from historic boundaries that had more to do with Edward I and the Welsh marches than with anything of contemporary significance to ones that accord with the standard English regions. Some may think this a prosaic issue, but it is of great importance to those at local level, because in any one area there is only one chief officer of police, one probation officer, one chief Crown prosecutor and so on.

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

The Home Secretary seemed very dismissive of the historical origins of some of the circuits regarded as traditional by members of the Bar. Before treating the matter with such levity, he should recognise that what he is proposing to do has been referred to me as a cause of great anger among those at the sharp end of the profession. I hope that he has received similar representations, especially from the Midland and Oxford circuit, because I understand it to be a matter that has caused great anger, and not one to be dismissed with levity, saying that the boundaries date back to Edward I and are unworkable.

Jack Straw (Labour, Blackburn)

With respect, there is a difference between treating an issue with levity and having a sense of humour. I hope that the House understood that I was using some humour, but in a spirit of affection towards those circuits and without levity. Just because something is of great antiquity, it does not follow that we should not change it. The whole process of Parliament is about change. The matter is one for my noble Friend the Lord Chancellor, and not for me. However, as the hon. Gentleman asked whether I had received any representations on it, the answer is no, and that is quite interesting, as I make myself available to members of my old profession as much as I can and still try to be active as a member of my own Inn.

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

I am sure that the Home Secretary spoke only loosely when he said that the business of Parliament is about change. Will he confirm that we are not engaged in a process of continuous, Maoist revolution? Will he further confirm his awareness of and support for Lord Falkland's valuable dictum? It states: When it is not necessary to change, it is necessary not to change.

Jack Straw (Labour, Blackburn)

Of course I subscribe to that entirely prosaic observation, but the history of the House is one of change. It is important that changes imposed by the laws passed by the two Houses of Parliament be considered carefully rather than capriciously, not least because each of us faces death. We live in a changing world, where every day is different—and every day is different in this place. Madam Deputy Speaker, may I take my first opportunity to welcome you to the Chair? I am glad to be tempted down that philosophical excursion, but I shall return to the point for fear of your calling me to order. One of the Bill's primary purposes is to create a National Probation Service for England and Wales. All parties agree with that aim. The National Probation Service will enable us to ensure much greater consistency and to improve performance in protecting the public and reducing reoffending. It is important that any such organisation should be able to appoint its senior executives centrally. Chief probation officers hold the key to the service's performance, and it is crucial that the right people be appointed in the right areas. It is accepted implicitly—there is no argument about it—that the current system of local appointment has failed. There are many excellent chief officers, but some are less good. It has also been very unsatisfactory that the performance of the less good officers has been mirrored by that of the less good area boards, with considerable adverse consequences for the probation service as a whole. The previous Administration sought to wrestle with that problem by the establishment of national standards over a period of years. The Government have continued to take the matter forward over the past three and half years. However, the performance of probation services with regard to breach varies over a most extraordinary range. The 1999 survey by the Association of Chief Officers of Probation shows that good services achieve in the high 80 per cent. range when it comes to enforcement of breaches, but I regret to say that, in Essex, only 8 per cent. of cases in which orders are breached three times are subject to any enforcement. No one can look at such evidence without being very concerned about the performance of the individual services and about the overall system that allowed such extraordinary variations in performance to happen. As the House would expect, I have read the debate held in the other place on 31 October. I respect those who hold a view different from mine, but we have already made the step change involved in moving from a series of local services to a National Probation Service. The NPS is different, in kind and function, from those services that are, wholly or mainly, administered and run at a local level such as local authorities or the police service. We are dealing with the enforcement of orders of the court. In Britain, our court provision is national. Of course, it is administered locally to a degree, but judges and justices of the peace are appointed centrally. One of the important elements in any fair system of criminal justice is that, within the same jurisdiction, there should be consistency between one court and another. We have two agencies to enforce the orders of the court—the Prison Service, and the probation service. The Prison Service is a national body, run by a director general answerable to me. In turn, I am responsible and answerable for that service to the House. Governors of local prisons are appointed by the director general, and they have arrangements and relationships with local people, not least with those who give up so much of their time and effort to serve on the boards of visitors. However, the Prison Service could not deliver what we hope is a more consistent and effective service if it were not run nationally. The other agency that must deliver consistency of enforcement under a national court system is the probation service. As I have indicated, one of its major problems has been a lack of consistency. When we weigh up the needs for consistency and for a high degree of local responsiveness, the balance of factors across the spectrum for the probation service is the same as that for the Prison Service. That balance may not necessarily be that required for other services, but I contend that the need for consistency calls for the establishment and enforcement of national standards. I am very clear about that. I hope that the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) does not think me patronising, but I thought that her experience as Minister with responsibility for prisons and probation, and her subsequent experience, allowed her to speak with great wisdom in previous debates about the way in which the prison and probation services can sometimes pull against each other. She has said that the services ought to operate as a seamless whole. That is true, and very important. In my judgment, however, it would be more difficult to achieve that objective if we set up a management structure for the probation service that had those tensions built into it. The Prison Service operates as a clear national service, with appointees answerable to the director general. Of course it takes account of local circumstances and relations with boards of visitors, but that is the general framework. The amendment would mean that the attempt to establish a National Probation Service with a national chief officer would have the problem that the executives attempting to deliver the service would not be appointed by that chief officer—and, ultimately, by the Secretary of State. Under the amendment, those executives would be appointed by the area boards. That is not a workable arrangement, and it would undermine the goal of establishing a National Probation Service, which is shared by hon. Members of all parties. In the debate in the other place, Baroness Blatch talked about divided loyalties. I believe that some loyalties will be divided wherever one draws the line, but that more loyalties would be divided if one drew the line according to the amendment rather than according to the Bill. There are plenty of examples of more centralist approaches being adopted. For instance, the previous Administration did so when they replaced regional health authorities with civil servants appointed as regional general managers as part of the national health service executive. The changes proposed in the Bill are being made for reasons that are similar, although not identical. We want there to be local responsiveness, which can be dealt with by the local probation boards that the Bill also establishes.

Simon Hughes (Liberal Democrat, North Southwark and Bermondsey)

The Home Secretary is entitled to a view that is entirely rational, but other people take a view based on the example of police chiefs. Outside London, they are appointed locally by police authorities as part of the criminal justice service. However, the right hon. Gentleman cited examples to show the wide variation of performance among probation services. Does not he accept that that argument is not necessarily one that supports a centralised service? Inspectorates—in the probation service, or in prisons or education—are meant to deal with such variations. Could not better results in terms of consistency of performance be achieved if the inspectorate of the probation service worked to ensure it? That would not require a central appointments system. The argument that ensuring consistency of performance requires centralisation does not hold up as a political conclusion.

Jack Straw (Labour, Blackburn)

With respect, I contend that, although good and effective inspection is a necessary condition for achieving greater consistency of performance, it is not sufficient in itself. Proper management structures are needed as well, and the Government submit that those structures should be as I have described. The argument about chief officers of police does not really hang together. Although such officers are appointed by the police authorities, they go through the highly centralist funnel of the senior command course before appointment. To get on to that, there is a biennial selection process, with a high degree of screening and national moderation as to who forms the cadre from which those local police officers are appointed. In any event, although the police authority appoints them, they have very few responsibilities in respect of the conduct of the office of chief officer because he or she is operationally independent and answerable to the courts and the Secretary of State more often than to the police authority.

John Taylor (Conservative, Solihull)

I am extremely grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way. In a previous existence, I was involved in the pursuit of coterminosity in the context of the Police and Magistrates Courts Act 1994 in which the Minister of State, Home Office, the right hon. Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng), was also involved. I am not unfamiliar with the pursuit of coterminosity between police, the probation service and prosecuting authorities—in fact, I am rather bound up in it. Have we lost sight of coterminosity of magistrates courts' jurisdictions as well? Why not do them all?

Jack Straw (Labour, Blackburn)

I am aware of the hon. Gentleman's experience. We are doing that as well, and I am sorry that I omitted to say that.

Gerry Bermingham (Labour, St Helens South)

Does my right hon. Friend agree that there is already a precedent for central, as it were, control with local leaders in the Crown Prosecution Service as now restructured, in that the Director of Public Prosecutions appoints the local chief prosecutors? I have reservations about the Bill, so will my right hon. Friend undertake to ensure that the mistake of underfunding the Crown Prosecution Service when it was set up will not be repeated when the new service is set up?

Jack Straw (Labour, Blackburn)

I accept what my hon. Friend says in his opening remarks. There is a higher degree of local responsiveness under these arrangements than under the Crown Prosecution Service. There were two major flaws in the way in which the CPS was established in 1985. One was to make it a national service without any regard to local need and to construct administrative arrangements in England and Wales that defied local consultation responsiveness. The second flaw was significantly to underfund the service. I am pleased to say that after a period in which the funding of the probation service went down in the closing years of the previous Administration—1997–98—we have been able to increase funding in the past two years, including this year. For the future, there will be a significant increase in funding because we recognise that a new service needs properly to be provided.

Gerry Bermingham (Labour, St Helens South)

In asking that question, may I declare an interest as a member of the Bar? I forgot to mention it, but I think that everyone knows.

Sylvia Heal (Deputy Speaker, Halesowen and Rowley Regis)

That has been noted. Thank you.

Ann Widdecombe (Conservative, Maidstone and The Weald)

May I also congratulate you on your occupancy of the Chair, Madam Deputy Speaker, and welcome you? This is the first time that I have performed under your eagle eye, and it is indeed a great pleasure to see you. Once again, I see some merit in the Government's proposals. I see genuine merit in the central appointment of chief probation officers. However, I also see many problems, and I am not convinced that the Secretary of State has addressed them sufficiently. The first problem is that of clear line management. How will that be aided if the chief probation officers owe their loyalty to the Secretary of State who appoints them but are accountable to their local wards? That seems a recipe for confusion. I listened carefully to what the right hon. Gentleman said on that point, and he glossed over it rather. I would be grateful if he could return to the issue in his closing remarks. As for parallels, chairmen of NHS trusts, for example, are appointed locally, as are chief constables. There does not seem to be an overwhelming case, at this stage, for having central appointments of chief probation officers. The right hon. Gentleman made the point with considerable force that if we ever wanted to amalgamate the prison and probation services, it would be sensible to have one system of appointments rather than two, and I understand that. However, we are not at that stage. The right hon. Gentleman has already said tonight, for example, that he does not want to join the inspectorate immediately. Therefore, it seems rather premature to appoint chief probation officers centrally. I could see more merit in the Secretary of State's desire to take more direct control if he did not already have extensive powers. An amendment suggested in another place allows him to approve appointments, so he would still be able, effectively, to block an unsuitable choice. I remind the Home Secretary of the words of Baroness Blatch. She said in another place: What benefit … is there in one individual being contracted to a different employer? It makes no sense. The Secretary of State's powers are not impeded one iota, but what is important is that the chief officer … has a clear management line. Baroness Blatch went on to say: The Secretary of State will still retain the right of approval over the appointment of chief officers. He will still be able to appoint and remove boards. He will have control of 100 per cent. of funding and allocation of funding. He will set overall objectives for the service. He will receive reports from the inspectorate and will be given regular statistical and financial information, audit reports and annual reports from each board. He will also have power of direction and default. For goodness sake, those are sufficient powers!—[Official Report, House of Lords, 2 October 2000; Vol. 616, c. 1154–61.] Baroness Blatch also said in a further debate on the Bill: The relationship of the chief officer to other staff and to the board is also critical. For the employer of the chief officer to be the Secretary of State and the employers of all other staff to be the boards will create difficulties and possibly at times divided loyalties.—[Official Report, House of Lords,31 October 2000; Vol. 618, c. 801.] That was the essence of the argument in the other place and it is the essence of our argument tonight. However, I shall be kind to the Secretary of State, in a rare moment of benevolence towards him. If he can address the points that I have raised with sufficient rigour and conviction, I will not seek to divide the House.

Jackie Ballard (Liberal Democrat, Taunton)

May I also congratulate you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and welcome you to your post? As the Home Secretary said, this is a very important issue. We are asking questions such as who employs chief probation officers, to whom do they owe their loyalty and to whom are they accountable. We have heard from the Home Secretary and from an ex-Home Office Minister, who warmed to the Home Secretary's proposals, but in the House of Lords a number of ex-Home Office Ministers spoke in favour of the amendments. They believed, as we do, that the Government's proposals are a recipe for confusion of accountability and authority, leaving local boards in an invidious position. The proposals would set up a management structure with an in-built tension—something that the Secretary of State said that he wanted to avoid. Perhaps it betrays the Government's secret—or not so secret—desire for a National Probation Service. I see that that woke up the Minister.

Paul Boateng (Labour, Brent South)

It is not secret.

Jackie Ballard (Liberal Democrat, Taunton)

Perhaps it is not so secret. However, I thought that the Government believed that there was an important role for local probation boards—so important that they want to appoint them all themselves—and therefore a role for local discretion, priorities and needs; otherwise it may as well be a nationalised probation service. Surely, local probation boards are to administer a local service, although they will take direct instructions from the Home Office, get their funding directly from it, and will have to adhere to national standards and priorities. However, those should be used and interpreted in the light of local needs; otherwise, why have local boards at all? If the Minister disagrees, perhaps he should intervene. The right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) referred to Lords amendment No. 121, which was accepted in the House of Lords, supported by many of my noble Friends. It would give the Secretary of State the right to approve those appointments, as happens with chief police officers. We should remind ourselves that the Secretary of State is to appoint all the members of local boards and can dismiss them or their chairmen if he thinks that they are not performing properly or not carrying out the tasks that he wishes them to perform. Surely, therefore, he can trust his appointees to make the right appointment in choosing their chief officer.

Gerry Bermingham (Labour, St Helens South)

I have been listening carefully to the hon. Lady, and a thought has started to cross my mind. If we take the city of Birmingham and the next-door town of Wolverhampton, which are not in the same local government area, why should there be different needs in two adjacent towns? The hon. Lady's argument about the board meeting local needs has no great substance, so perhaps she will provide an explanation.

Jackie Ballard (Liberal Democrat, Taunton)

It sounds as if the hon. Gentleman is arguing against having local boards at all, although I had understood that that was not his opinion. Surely he would accept that, at the very least, there are different patterns of criminal activity and varying availability of, for example, social housing and employment, in different parts of the country. I shall not take up the House's time going through all the different types of needs, but I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman took that line. In Committee, the Minister challenged me to count the number of new powers that the Bill will give to the Secretary of State. I have to confess that I have not had enough idle moments to complete what he knows is a lengthy task. I suspect that he has not had enough idle moments, either. However, the power is a centralising power too far. The Central Probation Council, which is the probation employers' organisation, generally welcomes and supports the Bill, but it has strong feelings about this issue. In its briefing, it states: The Home Office consultations on the Prisons/Probations Review and "Joining Forces to Protect the Public" set out various options for the future governance of the probation service, including a national service with "local reference groups or advisory boards". The government did not choose that option. Instead, local probation boards retaining the full duties of employers of probation staff were decided upon. The council states: It is important to recognise the corporate status of the new boards and the responsibilities placed on them, not only by the Home Office, employment law, financial regulation, health and safety regulations, the Better Quality Services initiatives and the Human Rights Act. Chief officers will be placed in a difficult position as members of a local board who administer a local service but receive direct instructions from their Home Office boss. The Home Secretary said that, for the effective performance of the service, it was important to be able to make the chief officer appointment centrally. However, in the national health service, chief executives are employed by local trusts and, as we have already heard, chief constables are employed by police authorities. The Home Secretary said that lack of consistency in the probation service had been a major problem in the past. As my hon. Friend the Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) said, does that not suggest a failure of the inspectorate to monitor and report on adherence to national standards? The Home Secretary talked about the centralised approvals system of chief police officers and said that it could not be compared to the system for probation officers. In responding to our debate, will he comment on the new assessment centre process for the appointment of chief probation officers? That process will be similar to that governing the appointment of chief police officers. Our debate on this group of amendments has been the longest so far tonight because it concerns the balance of power and lines of accountability, which are key issues in the Bill. I am disappointed that the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald said that her party is not inclined to oppose the Government on this matter. Liberal Democrat Members are inclined to oppose the Government on their failure to support these Lords amendments and we hope that the right hon. Lady will join us in the Lobby.

Jack Straw (Labour, Blackburn)

The right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) set me the difficult test of answering her questions with sufficient rigour and conviction to satisfy her. She is on an each-way bet and, should she wish to vote with Liberal Democrat Members once I have finished, that would be consistent with what she said earlier. I should like to deal with the key issue raised by the right hon. Lady and the hon. Member for Taunton (Jackie Ballard). When discussing institutional change, there is always a tendency to think that it is possible to lay down single lines of accountability and answerability and to think that there must be an algorithm that can establish those to the exclusion of other, more complex, arrangements. However, life is not like that, especially not in a large society in a big country of 55 million people, with 50 million living in England and Wales. We are trying to do two things—run a national service and make it locally responsive—so there will be a tension. There is not a single line of accountability, but lines of accountability, answerability and responsiveness are drawn. That is no different in the public sector than in the private sector. I can think of plenty of examples in which large national companies wish to ensure that they maintain a national operational framework at the same time as they secure responsiveness to local need. They do that by having the chief executive of each of their subsidiaries appointed by the main board but, day by day, that chief executive is a member of the subsidiary local board, which, in turn, represents the local area or the specific interest of that local subsidiary company. There are other examples in the public sector. Of course, we will look at parallels. However, in each service in the public sector from, at one end, highly local services such as planning and environmental health, to the armed forces at the other, there are different arrangements to provide for the balance between local responsiveness and national direction according to the needs and functions of each service. We must try to make a bespoke service. The right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald asked about clear management lines, which were also mentioned by Baroness Blatch. Under the arrangements, the lines of management are clear and the national chief officer will be appointed by the Secretary of State. In turn, the area chief officers will be formally appointed by the Secretary of State, but the national chief officer will have a great deal to do with those appointments. Those chief officers are answerable for what happens in their local areas. Moreover, they are full members of the local boards, to which they and other members are appointed by the Secretary of State, so they are all appointed on the same basis. As for the chairs of NHS trusts, may I tell the right hon. Lady that it is on the record that they are appointed by the Secretary of State, not appointed locally. Chief executives in the NHS are appointed locally, but the chairs are not, although they have a semi-executive position, which must be borne in mind. That arrangement in the NHS delivers the right balance between clear management lines in a national service and local responsiveness. Local chief officers are appointed by the Secretary of State on the recommendation of the national chief officer, but are full members of their local board, take part in discussions at a local board level and, within the local board's terms of reference, must abide by its decisions. They could be outvoted on the local board. I ask the House to consider what would happen in the reverse situation in which the chief officer was not a member of the local board but had been appointed by it and was subordinate to it. That must be so; one cannot be appointed by a local board and suddenly become a member of it. It would be odd for the local board to be the employer of one of its own members. Such an extraordinary arrangement would raise difficulties over any employment issue.

Jackie Ballard (Liberal Democrat, Taunton)

rose—

Jack Straw (Labour, Blackburn)

If the hon. Lady is about to mention head teachers, she is right and I am wrong. I knew that there was some flaw in my argument and it is unfortunate that it occurred to me after I had spoken. However, having chaired the board of governors of a large comprehensive, I have been through difficulties over employment of a head teacher—not the current one. Where there are problems with the employment of a head teacher, the fact that the head teacher is a member of the governing body that appointed him or her raises serious difficulties. I shall now make a good point on the basis of the facts, having made a not-so-good one without the backing of the facts. If the alternative arrangement proposed by the Opposition were introduced, there would apparently—only apparently—be clearer lines of communication locally. However, it would be certain that national lines of communication would be much more confused. In effect, because the local board had appointed a person, that person would think himself or herself much more answerable to his or her employers than he or she was nationally accountable. That would undermine the concept of a national probation service.

Hilton Dawson (Labour, Lancaster and Wyre)

Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Jack Straw (Labour, Blackburn)

In a moment. Among other things, that would make it more difficult in practice to hold the Secretary of State to account for what was going on in an alleged national service. People would say that it was a national service in name but not in practice.

Hilton Dawson (Labour, Lancaster and Wyre)

My right hon. Friend has started to answer my point, but we are discussing an important national service and we need to address both consistency and cultural change. We may be moving away from what has been something of a social work service to one that has, as one of its principal aims, the protection of the public. Is it not an index of the Government's seriousness that they propose to manage that change in the way that they do?

Jack Straw (Labour, Blackburn)

I am grateful to my hon. Friend who brings to this issue a great deal of experience gained before he came into the House. I know of the interest that he has taken in these matters since he was elected. More eloquently than I will, my hon. Friend made my next point in answer to the questions of the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald on whether the powers that would remain if Baroness Blatch's amendments were to be included in the Bill would be sufficient for overall management of the service. There are powers of direction and powers, in one form or another, of effective veto. Given the task before us—the dynamic task of securing the cultural change in the probation service to which my hon. Friend referred—such negative powers of veto on appointment or to issue directions are necessary but not sufficient to achieve change. If we are to achieve cultural change against deep-seated conventions within the probation service and to raise the performance of the average and less-than-average to the level of the best, we need a more continuous process of management, which our structure will secure. I do not suggest that we are proposing the perfect solution. There is not one. However, on balance, our proposals better achieve the overall aims agreed between all parties for a national probation service. They will also better secure proper accountability, effectiveness and consistency in the national probation service.

Jack Straw (Labour, Blackburn)

I beg to move, That this House disagrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

Sylvia Heal (Deputy Speaker, Halesowen and Rowley Regis)

With this it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments Nos. 42, 43, 135, 137 and 138 and the Government motions to disagree thereto.

Jack Straw (Labour, Blackburn)

This debate is about similar principles to those that we have just discussed. Essentially, it is about the overall management and structure of the National Probation Service, but our arguments in this case are even stronger than those on the previous group of amendments, which was about who should appoint and employ the local director under the national director for the service. We believe that it would be wrong for local probation boards to hold land and that it would be inconsistent for them to do so in the context of a national organisation. Under the Bill, local probation boards will exist to deliver local services, to make a major contribution to protecting the public and to reduce reoffending. They should not have to dissipate that effort to deal with real estate. It is hard to discern what special qualities people appointed to a local probation board to help to contribute to the responsiveness of the service at a local level will necessarily have in respect of property holding. It is worth bearing in mind the problems that currently arise. One probation committee chairman told my right hon. Friend the Minister of State that up to half of his committee meetings were spent dealing with property matters. That is not the purpose of boards, and neither should it be. The subsidiary point is that we would expect to manage the estate more efficiently and effectively from the centre. It is one sector in which real economies of scale can be obtained. A further point relates to the comments of the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) on how better to secure co-operation and co-ordination between the Prison Service and the local probation service. Much of that better co-ordination and co-operation will arise when they are working in the same place and it will be much easier to secure their operation from the same place if it is possible, as appropriate, to amalgamate offices and so on. That can be done far more easily through the National Probation Service than through the convoluted procedures that would be necessary if the land were held locally. Let me deal with the canard that was raised in the other place—that if real estate were held by the National Probation Service, whenever local staff needed to change a light bulb, repair a leaking tap or make another repair they would have to seek authorisation from London. That is nonsense. Such matters would be dealt with locally and the day-to-day management of the properties that local probation boards occupy would be for them. I hope that the House accepts that there is a world of difference between buying and selling property and dealing with basic maintenance. I ask hon. Members to disagree with the Lords amendments.

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

I welcome you, Madam Deputy Speaker, to the Chair and congratulate you on your appointment. The Home Secretary is a past master of uttering soothing bromides to reassure any Member who does not readily share his point of view. I am sure, however, that he will not be unduly surprised to learn that, despite the mellifluous tones in which he begged to differ with the noble Lords, Conservative Members are not persuaded. The purpose of the amendments is to allow local probation boards the opportunity to hold or manage land. The Home Secretary referred to the importance of probation boards, and it is arguable that their functions render it appropriate that they should at least have proper discretion over the type of property that they use and over variations in the use of that property. Many active in the service have suggested to us that they believe that that discretionary entitlement, which they might not choose to exercise, is important. They are concerned about an unnecessary and, arguably, draconian confiscation of power by the Government. The Government have hinted that there could be major restructuring of the property held by the probation service once that property is taken into the ownership of the Home Office. The Home Secretary referred gently to that a moment ago and contented himself with the modest observation—we know that "modesty" is his middle name—that benefits could result from the estate being run more effectively, as he put it, from the centre. The Home Secretary is aware that I hold him in the highest esteem and that I do not intend unduly to damage his reputation or cause him to blush. He knows that I regard him as the best of a pretty bad bunch of Cabinet Ministers. He is unfailingly courteous, he attends to the argument and he is the closest approximation to a human being that I have yet encountered in a member of Her Majesty's new Labour Government. Although I think that he has many merits, I do not regard him as a suitable estate agent. I have never thought of him as an appropriate chief executive of Hambro Countrywide. It does not seem to me or my hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins) that it is obvious—to put it mildly—that the control of the estate should be vested in the centre. As we seek to establish the entitlement of local probation boards to exercise discretion, it is important briefly to rehearse the arguments to which the Home Secretary referred and which were uttered in the other place last month. I was particularly struck by the observations of my noble Friend Baroness Blatch, who discussed the issue on 31 October. She referred to the fact that the Government appeared to have in mind great savings and structural benefits from reorganisation. She was doubtful about that and referred to several letters that Lord Bassam, who speaks for the Government in the other place, had recently sent to interested Members. In paragraph 28 of one letter, he said: We [the Government] are convinced, however, that there are sound reasons for concentrating ownership and overall management of the Probation estate in the national directorate. What heady brew did Lord Bassam offer us in defence of that proposition? It amounted to a twofold assertion—nothing better than that. He said that the Government believed that accounting responsibility will be placed squarely on the Government— as though that were a benefit. It is not entirely clear to me that placing responsibility for accounting in the hands of the Government rather than with the local probation board, which is directly affected by financial management, is necessarily an advantage. His letter added that there will be better opportunity to control investment procurement and development so as to make the best of all the assets of the National Probation Service. Methinks I hear overtones of the old National Enterprise Board. There is a good deal here about nationalisation, even though the word did not trip off the Home Secretary's tongue. He is nothing if not new Labour writ large. He is the emblem of the project, so obviously he did not vouchsafe nationalisation, but that is what the Government have in mind. They have a curious justification—which is also somewhat offensive to the local probation service—for their proposed nationalisation of the property estate. They have a notion that property will be better run centrally than if it is run by people who are directly responsible for delivering a quality service. 8 pm Paragraph 29 of Lord Bassam's letter states: It is also clear that the existing arrangements have worked far from well. In support of that dubious proposition, a survey by Donaldson's, a firm of chartered surveyors, is cited. It was conducted in 1999 and concluded that there was inadequate management of the estate despite excessive staffing and that a fair proportion of it was unsuitable for purpose and in poor repair. I am doubtful about the reference to excessive staffing. The Home Secretary cavilled at the suggestion that, as a result of the proposed change, control over relatively minor and prosaic matters, such as whether to insert a different light bulb, would be sapped from the local probation boards and conferred instead on a central leviathan. That may be so, but it is clear that the Government are considering rationalising the property estate and possibly reducing the number of people who are engaged at local level. What else are we to infer from the reference to excessive staffing? Many people are not convinced that staffing at local level is excessive. If the Government are convinced otherwise, they should plainly and openly say so. They should not dress up their intentions in a centralising measure that gives the impression that the Government regard themselves as a property manager. Governments of both colours have a truly risible record of interference in the management of property. I referred to the belief of Baroness Blatch that the management of local property, offices and interview rooms is best vested in local probation boards. Needless to say, despite the quizzical expression on the Minister of State's face, Baroness Blatch was not alone in expressing those concerns. She was joined, as she was at other times during the other place's Committee stage, by Lord Phillips of Sudbury. It was significant that Lord Phillips and his noble Friends chose to support the amendments tabled by Baroness Blatch. Specifically, Lord Phillips observed: Far from relieving local probation boards of concern and worry, the proposals— which the Government are advancing— are likely to add to them. Nothing can be more frustrating than having relatively modest property matters dealt with via Whitehall, with the distancing and bureaucracy that that can and often does mean. Lord Phillips continued: I know from experience on quangos that it is a great boon to be able to handle one's own property matters. It invariably leads to quicker, more effective, more efficient and, in the end, cheaper property arrangements. That is such a common-sense observation that only an extraordinarily clever person would choose to disagree with it, but, true to form, Lord Bassam did so. He seemed genuinely alarmed by the notion that local probation boards might retain and be granted discretion in the management of property. The most curious aspect of the debate was that towards the end of the exchanges, apparently irritated with the observations of Baroness Blatch, Lord Bassam said: My Lords, sometimes I believe that the noble Baroness does not understand that crime is a national and international phenomenon.—[Official Report, House of Lords, 31 October 2000; Vol. 618, c. 818–821.] There is not the slightest disagreement or uncertainty about that. The issue is, however, who manages the local resource—the land, the estate and the rooms, including their distribution and the functions to which they are put. We believe that there is much merit in leaving maximum discretion at the local level. We are worried by what seems to be a large-scale and, as far as we can judge it, an unnecessary arrogation of power to the centre. To avoid doubt, and so that the Conservative position is clearly on the record, I should say that we are not arguing this issue as a great matter of principle.

Paul Boateng (Labour, Brent South)

Ah!

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

The right hon. Gentleman says "Ah" as though I had vouchsafed spectacular new information, which I have not. The issue is one of practicality. I yield to no one in my respect for and preoccupation with practicality. He can chunter disapprovingly from a sedentary position if the mood takes him, but I am simply saying that if the Government were able to advance a credible case, preferably with a costing attached, to demonstrate that the proposed changes would create savings that could more effectively be used for the purpose of implementing the responsibilities of the probation service at local level, we would be happy to concede. In short, if the Home Secretary proved his case, and argued by using evidence rather than advocacy, we would be content. However, it is not sensible to support and undertake a major accretion of power to the centre unless a proven benefit will result from that arrogation of power. We have not been so persuaded. I have been very discriminating in presenting my argument because there are many other important issues to address. I could have quoted chapter and verse at substantially greater length, no doubt irritating the Minister of State in the process. I have resisted the sore temptation to dilate further on the subject. Suffice it to say that what the Government are proposing is not necessary. What my noble Friends argued for in the other place, supported by Lord Phillips of Sudbury, was sensible, moderate and justified. Indeed, it was, if I may politely so suggest, in accordance with the dictates of common sense. It is that proposition that I commend to the House.

Jackie Ballard (Liberal Democrat, Taunton)

I shall be even briefer than the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow). The three main assets or local resources that local probation boards will need to control to fulfil their statutory responsibilities are staff, finance and premises. Some people already doubt the ability of boards to secure the compliance of staff with their instructions in the event of a conflict between the board and the chief officer. We should bear it in mind that it was made clear in our earlier debate that the board and the chief officer will be appointed by the Secretary of State. Funds will be provided only by the Home Office and it is now proposed that premises from which the boards' responsibilities are exercised will also be owned by the Home Office, and managed, presumably, by another organisation with which the board will not have a contractual relationship. The Government's proposals on property will fundamentally weaken the role of boards. They must have some power with which to exercise their responsibilities. As we delve deeper into the Bill, it becomes clearer that local boards will have responsibilities without much power, and I wonder who will want to serve on them. The Secretary of State said that it is more effective to manage and control the estate centrally. I recall that two or three years ago some newspapers and others described him as a liberal. I do not know whether he wanted that description—

Jack Straw (Labour, Blackburn)

It is true.

Jackie Ballard (Liberal Democrat, Taunton)

Presumably that means that the right hon. Gentleman welcomes and wants that description. If he wants to deserve it, he will have to curb his desire to centralise everything. It might be a matter of practicality for the official Opposition to oppose centralisation on this subject, but it is a matter of principle for Liberals to oppose centralisation in general.

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

The hon. Lady tempts me to ask whether she has in mind the Home Secretary's condemnation of those he described in a famous speech as Hampstead liberals. He has subsequently reinforced that condemnation, as did his hon. Friends in Committee.

Jackie Ballard (Liberal Democrat, Taunton)

I must confess that I do not know any liberals in Hampstead. I am sure that there are many liberals there, but I do not know them personally, so I cannot comment on what they are like or whether they are more or less liberal than the Home Secretary.

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

Will the hon. Lady give way?

Jackie Ballard (Liberal Democrat, Taunton)

I do not think that Madam Deputy Speaker will allow us to go too far with this interchange, but I shall give way.

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

I am grateful to the hon. Lady. I know that she is always meticulous in the representation of the arguments of other right hon. and hon. Members. May I therefore point out in all seriousness that although the burden of our argument rests on practicality, there are, of course, issues of principle relating to the diffusion of power? We say that the principle of the diffusion of power is not an absolute. If it could be shown that the benefits that would flow from centralisation were so enormous that they outweighed the general principle of decentralisation, we should be prepared to abide by the evidence. In this case, however, the Government want to centralise and do not have a decent argument, so the position that they are advancing is nonsense on stilts.

Jackie Ballard (Liberal Democrat, Taunton)

The activities of the previous Government do not suggest that diffusion of power was an important principle for them. They might have undergone a damascene conversion that I had not noticed—[Interruption.] I do not know whether the Hansard reporters heard that. The hon. Member for Buckingham said that he was not a great enthusiast for the previous Government. Perhaps we should leave that comment there. The Secretary of State said that we need a nationally managed estate to deliver an effective service, but the national health service estate is not nationally managed: local health authorities and local trusts make decisions about the disposal of that estate depending on changing needs and changing means of delivering a service. They can then decide what to do with the proceeds and how to reinvest them in the local service. I am not at all convinced by the Secretary of State's arguments, but he might be able to convince me if he can point to a precedent for the desperate need for a nationally managed estate to deliver an effective service

Jack Straw (Labour, Blackburn)

I place on record my sincere gratitude for the remarks of the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow), who sought to damn me with great praise. We have a mutual regard. When I was thinking about complimenting him on his appointment, I considered saying that I regarded him as one of the finest adornments of the Opposition Benches to have been elected in 1997, but I did not want to damage his career. However, since he sought to do that to me, I now put it on the record. The hon. Gentleman skated backwards and forwards, saying on the one hand that all he was doing was applying common sense. I agree that common sense needs to be applied in the case that we are considering, but if all that someone says is that it is a matter of practicality, there is not much behind the argument. On the other hand, he went in for hyperbolic adjectives, which suggested that there was a good deal of emotion behind his argument—for example, the use of the word "nationalisation". The hon. Gentleman said that the proposal was, arguably, draconian. As I sometimes have to point out, the man who gave his name to that adjective was Draco. He was the chief magistrate in Athens in the 7th century BC, and is remembered for the fact that for virtually every offence in the Athenian criminal code he prescribed death. From that derives the word "draconian". However one describes an argument about whether the National Probation Service or local area boards should hold the land, to suggest that either or both of those arrangements is draconian is pushing the meaning of the word a tad too far. 8.15 pm At the beginning of his speech, the hon. Gentleman spoke in tentative terms, saying that it was at least arguable that those functions might be undertaken at a local level, rather than at national level. It is a matter of degree. The decision to vest the land in the Secretary of State flows from the establishment of the National Probation Service, which we are trying better to manage. The hon. Gentleman suggested that that could be seen as a covert way—he did not use that phrase—of securing cuts in staffing. One of the problems from which the probation service has suffered significantly in the years up to 1999–2000 is underfunding. In 1995–96, expenditure, in cash, was £420 million. That rose to £435 million in 1996–97 and, under a budget set by the Conservatives, dropped to £428 million. I managed to get it back, under the Conservative spending plans, to £435 million, but it was tight. It then started to rise, to £453 million in 1999–2000 and to £480 million in the current financial year. We are planning for expenditure to increase from the current baseline by about £97 million in 2001–02, by £139 million in 2002–03 and by £170 million in 2003–04. We are putting a great deal of extra money into the probation service, because we want to make the service better. We do not have the margins, we do not want money wasted and we think that there are savings to be made in the overall management of the real estate in the probation service by the property being vested nationally. I say to the hon. Member for Taunton (Jackie Ballard) that I do not know enough about the matter, but it is arguable whether the arrangements for the vesting of NHS property in a variety of organisations work better than those that would apply if it were vested in a single institution. The hon. Member for Buckingham said that we proposed that the property of the probation service was "better run" centrally than locally. We are not discussing the running of the property—the fixing of roofs or the day-to-day management of the property. Of course that should be in the hands of the local area boards, and it will be. We are discussing much bigger issues—the disposal and acquisition of property—and there is no doubt that the system can be better managed at national level. Why? Without national arrangements, a local area board could become committed to a particular office or a particular piece of real estate, and arguments could develop. Of course, local area boards are entitled to their view, but in a national service that we are trying to make more efficient, someone has to decide, and ultimately that should be the Secretary of State. When we compare the running of the probation service with other services, we should bear in mind that in practice the accountability of the local probation board or committees to anyone other than those committees has been very thin. The wider public, local newspapers, Members of Parliament and local councillors do not examine what goes on from day to day. The circle is pretty self-contained. If there was a good argument between a local area board and the National Probation Service about whether a property should be disposed of, that would be better ventilated in this place, where the local Member of Parliament could question the Secretary of State. I do not say that in a mellifluous way. I am not trying to pour bromide over the argument. I am saying that we have thought about the matter and that, on balance, we believe that the proposed arrangement would be better. I hope that it commends itself to the House and to the other place.

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

I am grateful to the Home Secretary for giving way, and I note the terms in which he makes the case. He suggests that local probation boards operate within a relatively closed environment and that there is no significant opportunity for local residents or the media to voice their concerns about their policies. Does he accept that if centralisation is to take place there must be a clear, publicised mechanism whereby local disapproval of national intentions is formally taken into account and respected in the decision-making process?

Jack Straw (Labour, Blackburn)

Yes.

After Clause 23

Paul Boateng (Labour, Brent South)

I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

Sylvia Heal (Deputy Speaker, Halesowen and Rowley Regis)

With this it will be convenient to take Lords amendments Nos. 57 to 66, 71 and 72.

Paul Boateng (Labour, Brent South)

I add my voice to those congratulating you, Madam Deputy Speaker, on your appointment. It is a pleasure to serve under you in this first debate on a topic of and in which, having visited with your local magistrates court, I know that you have a profound knowledge and interest. Amendment No. 52 makes the Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service, its officers and organisations performing functions on behalf of CAFCASS, subject to the Protection of Children Act 1999. The others are more minor amendments, most of which add to or tidy up the definition of working with children in part II. Exceptions are amendments Nos. 57 and 58, which ensure that the definition of a qualifying sentence is accurate, and amendment No. 60, which closes a loophole in the offences created by ensuring that it is an offence to fail to remove a disqualified individual from working with children—for example, by holding open a relevant post for someone. Amendment No. 59 provides for the restoration of disqualification orders through application by a chief officer of police or director of social services to the High Court. The other amendments add appropriate positions to the list of regulated positions—members of the youth justice board and the Children's Commissioner for Wales—or clarify the definition by taking into account the changes currently taking place as a result of the Local Government Act 2000. The Protection of Children Act gives greater protection to children who may be put at risk of harm. The Act places a duty on child-care organisations to refer to the Secretary of State individuals who have been employed in a child-care position where they have been dismissed on grounds of misconduct which harmed a child or placed a child at risk. Individuals are covered even if they retire or resign before they are dismissed. Child-care organisations which intend to employ someone are placed under a duty to ensure that that person is not on the list held by the Secretary of State. If that person is found to be on the list, the child-care organisation must not employ them. As officers of CAFCASS, and those performing functions on behalf of CAFCASS, will have unsupervised contact with children, it is essential that the measures apply to the new service. We have considered carefully the principle of allowing for reinstatement of the disqualification order introduced in part II. Having had the opportunity to consider the issue, we have come to the conclusion that it would be right in principle to make some provision to cover the matter, even if, as we believe, there should be a need for it only in rare cases, if at all. The amendment allows for the restoration of the disqualification order without in any way jeopardising the strength of the original order or the consideration of the tribunal for lifting it in the first place. I trust that the other amendments to part II will not prove contentious. They serve only to ensure that disqualified persons do not remain in posts which would grant them access to children and enhance the range of, and properly define where necessary, those posts from which disqualified people are barred. In both cases the reasoning is clear and, I hope that the House will agree, valid.

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

I associate the official Opposition with the Minister's welcome to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, in your new capacity. On the third group of amendments, I said that we would return to the sensitive issues concerning the protection of children. You, Madam Deputy Speaker, will have noticed that with this group of amendments we have now reached that point. Perhaps even more significant are the next two groups of amendments, which deal with some of the most sensitive issues. The Minister is right to talk about the importance of strengthening the Bill, but I want to take a little time to make the point that it might have been more appropriate had he paid tribute to my noble Friend Baroness Blatch for her initiative on behalf of the official Opposition with regard to the reinstatement of disqualification order, which the Minister mentioned in relation to amendment No. 59. Before you, Madam Deputy Speaker, took the Chair, but as other hon. Members will recall, those on the Treasury Bench suggested that we were being unjust to their noble Friend Lord Bassam of Brighton in criticising the number of climbdowns that he has been forced to make, but amendment No. 59 is the clearest possible illustration of what we were talking about. Because these matters are important to disqualification orders in relation to those who are a threat to children, I want to set out the exact sequence of events. On the second day in Committee in the other place, my noble Friend Baroness Blatch described in some detail the need for what was then amendment No. 97, headed "Reinstatement of Disqualification Order". She set out all the good reasons that the Government have now belatedly accepted as to why that was necessary. She was then faced with a lengthy attack on her reasoning and the amendment from none other than Lord Bassam. In attacking the Opposition's amendments, he said: I suggest that the way in which the noble Baroness seeks to reintroduce a disqualification order is not workable. We want to see a workable scheme. I believe that the scheme we have offered is workable. I believe that the explanation I have given for ways in which a ban could be reintroduced is coherent. We do not think that it is necessary to do what the noble Baroness seeks.—[Official Report, House of Lords, 4 October 2000; Vol. 616, c. 1538.] That was in response to many serious points that my noble Friend had made about matters relating to spent convictions. However, when the Government were later forced to change their stance, Lord Bassam did not participate in the climbdown. Another Minister, Lord Williams of Mostyn, dealt with the matter little more than a month later on 8 November when the Bill was being reconsidered by another place. 8.30 pm My noble Friend Baroness Blatch said: My Lords, I shall be very brief. As noble Lords will have noticed, another amendment has been tabled covering the same area of concern— reinstatement of disqualification order— I have had throughout the passage of the Bill. I am deeply grateful to the Government for their Amendment No. 30. I shall now sit down and wait for the noble Lord to introduce that amendment. Up popped the Attorney-General, Lord Williams of Mostyn, who, by complete contrast with Lord Bassam of Brighton, said: The noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, is quite right. I listened to the way in which she deployed her argument on the point of—I believe that I paraphrase it accurately—the restoration of a disqualification to a previously disqualified individual, and, if I may say so, I believe that her argument had substantial merit.—[Official Report, House of Lords, 8 November 2000; Vol. 618, c. 1536–37.]

Tony McWalter (Labour/Co-operative, Hemel Hempstead)

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

I shall give way in a moment to the hon. Gentleman who played a distinguished part in our Committee proceedings and, wisely, did not always support the Government. I shall finish my point before giving way. There is no clearer example of a U-turn. In only a month, Ministers moved from claiming that the proposals of Baroness Blatch were unworkable to saying that her argument had "substantial merit" and introducing a similar Government amendment. The only practical difference in the Government amendment was changing my noble Friend's description of "reinstatement of disqualification order" to the Government's wording, "restoration" of disqualification order. Lord Bassam of Brighton is rightly called Lord Climbdown.

Tony McWalter (Labour/Co-operative, Hemel Hempstead)

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his interesting remarks about my role in Committee. He knows that in Committee we were keen to strike a balance between protection of children and the protection of those against whom malevolent accusations of child abuse might be made. People who have a disqualification order but have not breached it may be especially vulnerable. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that what he portrays as a climbdown could be an attempt to try to resolve the tension between conflicting ideas about the rights of the different individuals involved?

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

I pay a further compliment to the hon. Gentleman, who has again shown his skills, on which the Home Secretary has rightly congratulated him. He is right. We spent much time in Committee discussing that important point. However, it will not have escaped his notice that, if the Government had listened to the comments of the Opposition in the House or in another place, and not simply said that our proposals were unworkable, we might have reached the current, more sensible position, which the Minister presented much earlier this evening. The hon. Gentleman is right to say that all hon. Members are aware of the dangers of malevolent allegations. Perhaps he saw in the national press last week details of an especially harrowing case. Two innocent teachers had been the subject of invented allegations. The charges were dropped against one and the other was acquitted. The judge made some savage criticisms of the investigation, which was insufficient; proper investigation would have led to a much earlier decision. There was no basis to the allegations. Discussing such points led to spending some time on a good and important debate in Committee. As I said earlier, the Government have been dragged kicking and screaming to accepting some of the points that we made in Committee and in another place. I am delighted that they have done that, and I do not want to take up the time of the House unduly. However, it is important to recognise that the Bill is a classic example of the way in which it should be possible for Ministers, civil servants and parliamentary draftsmen to take on board the sensible points made by opposition parties much earlier. If that happened, we would have better legislation more quickly. The Minister is right to say that some amendments are minor and consequential. However, we must be careful that we get the measure right and that we ensure that children are protected. The Bill is much better because restoration of disqualification orders is possible under it. I hope that the Minister will pay tribute to the substantial contribution of Opposition Front Benchers in another place to improving the Bill.

Simon Hughes (Liberal Democrat, North Southwark and Bermondsey)

I, too, have not yet spoken when you have been in the Chair, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I add my congratulations on your elevation. I want to make two points. First, there is clearly a general interest in making sure that the law succeeds in preventing people with a record of abuse or relevant sex offences from working with children, and recording their past history accurately so that future employers and, more important, their charges are protected. During the summer, the Government consulted Opposition parties about the way in which the law needed to be advanced. I was grateful for the positive consideration of and constructive responses to suggestions that I made to the Secretary of State and copied to the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe). That resulted at least in conversation about the way forward. That is one example of how we are trying to tighten up the system for protecting children in the proposed legislation as it progresses. I am sure that, whatever the details of debates in another place, we all share a desire to get it right. I compliment the Government and those in another place who sought to tighten up the rules on sex offenders working with children. Secondly, I want to ask a question that links the Bill to the measure on the equal age of consent, which is being considered at the other end of the building. One issue has been raised both in the context of the Bill that we are considering and of the other measure. If, at the end of the Session, we enacted the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Bill, which deals with correcting a distinction with regard to sexual activity, two matters will remain anomalous. I do not pretend to have perfect knowledge, but they are clear. First, there is currently a defence at law, which the Minister will know well, whereby a young adult male who has sexual intercourse with a girl who is under 16 is entitled to plead that he believed her to be over 16. For obvious reasons, that defence is not open to someone who is over 24. That matter has not been addressed in the context of equal treatment of people, irrespective of whether they are charged with heterosexual or homosexual offences. Secondly, and more importantly, if the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Bill is enacted, it will render people between 16 and 18 potentially not guilty of an offence of which they would otherwise be guilty. Will Ministers address that issue and ensure that legislation does not continue to regard someone as a criminal when their actions are no longer criminal under another measure? Perhaps the Minister will not be able to deal with that matter now. It relates in general terms to amendment No. 59, which includes references to people who are under the age of 18 when they commit offences. That must be reread with reference to disqualification, not the offence. How will the Government correct an anomaly that will remain if both Bills become law at the end of the Session?

Paul Boateng (Labour, Brent South)

I thank the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) for his description of our approach to the aspect of the Bill that deals specifically with the protection of children. Our intention has always been to be as inclusive as possible. That means including all parties in both Houses. I believe that that is vital. Protecting children is not a matter on which one should seek to score party political advantage. I regretted the tone and, at times, the content of the speech of the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins). [Interruption.] The right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) was not, to my knowledge, in the Chamber for his speech. She was not within sight to hear his speech, and one cannot fail to notice her. She was not in my direct line of vision. If she was hidden behind the ample figure of the silent one on the Opposition Bench, all well and good—lucky her. I did not see her, but had she heard the hon. Gentleman's contribution I do not believe that she would have found it of such a nature as to commend itself to a House that was trying to consider these matters in a consensual manner. It really does not do to attack noble Lords in those terms and in that way. I pay tribute to all noble Lords and Baronesses for the care and attention with which they addressed these important issues during the passage of the Bill. I am grateful for the improvements that have been made. I see the right hon. Lady is fixing me with one of her looks. I am only too happy to rise to her challenge on the rigour and conviction stakes, but if she expects contrition from this Minister, she is looking in the wrong direction. We do not have anything to be contrite about. In Committee, my Front-Bench colleagues and I appreciated enormously the contributions made by my hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. McWalter), because they were rooted in real experience of these issues. They were constructive and at all times supportive. I am very grateful to him for the stance that he took. I do not regard criticism, knowledge and constructive contributions to debates on issues of public importance as anything other than supportive. That is what consideration of a Bill in Committee and on the Floor of both Houses is all about. I am grateful to all those who have made this section of the Bill that much stronger as a result of their deliberations. I pay tribute to the noble Baroness Blatch. We were not able to accept her original amendment. My noble Friend Lord Bassam was right to reject it. She argued that the tribunal should reinstate the order. Our concern was that, in reinstating an order which it had discharged, it may be tempted to discharge disqualification orders in borderline cases knowing that it could correct a mistake subsequently. That would have been entirely the wrong approach, which is why we took the view that the High Court was important in this area. The Bill as amended has sufficient focus and rigour to ensure that the danger of Baroness Blatch's amendment to which I alluded has been avoided. With that in mind, I urge the House to give these amendments its blessing.

After Clause 36

Paul Boateng (Labour, Brent South)

I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

Sylvia Heal (Deputy Speaker, Halesowen and Rowley Regis)

With this it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments Nos. 68 and 69.

Paul Boateng (Labour, Brent South)

At present, it is an offence under section 1 of the Indecency with Children Act 1960 for a person to commit an act of gross indecency with or towards a child under 14 or incite a child under that age to such an act with him or another. The first new clause will raise the age of the child against whom the offence could be committed from 13 to 15. In Northern Ireland, a similar offence of indecent conduct towards a child in section 22 of the Northern Ireland Children and Young Persons Act 1968 applies to under 14-year-olds. The second new clause will raise the age of the child against whom the offence could be committed in Northern Ireland from 13 to 16. Amendment No. 69 will increase the maximum sentence under the Protection of Children Act 1978 for taking, making, distributing, showing and possessing with a view to distribution indecent photographs of children under 16 on conviction on indictment from three years' imprisonment or a fine, or both, to a term not exceeding 10 years or a fine, or both. The amendment will also make the simple possession of indecent images of children under 16 an either-way offence, and will increase the maximum penalty available under section 160 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 from six months' imprisonment or a fine, or both, to a term not exceeding five years' imprisonment or a fine, or both.

Simon Hughes (Liberal Democrat, North Southwark and Bermondsey)

Will the Minister give way?

Paul Boateng (Labour, Brent South)

Before I turn to the detail of this amendment, I should like to set out the Government's position on this area as a whole, then the hon. Gentleman can certainly intervene. We agree on the need to protect children and on the urgency of action. The Government are working actively on a number of fronts, of which the criminal law is an important aspect, but not the only one. As hon. Members will recall from our debate in Committee, we all realise the importance of the criminal law in this area, but we also recognise the other steps that need to be taken by the agencies and the parents' responsibilities. It is clearly vital for those who seek to offend against children, on or off the internet, to be prevented from doing so, and to be dealt with effectively as far as possible by the criminal law. It may be helpful if I deal first with Lords amendment No. 69. The Government fully share public abhorrence of the crime to which it refers. The production and possession of child pornography is condemned by all right-thinking people. We well understand that misuse of the internet has led to an increase in the number of offences under the Protection of Children Act 1978, and public concern about the circulation of such material has understandably grown. The amendment would ensure that the penalties available for offences of this kind reflected the seriousness with which society regards them. We cannot forget that pictures of child pornography are pictures of child abuse: nothing more, nothing less. This is abuse, and it must be treated as abuse. In the light of our anxiety to ensure that the law delivers protection for children—as well as the wider concern about increased incidences of child pornography offences—the time is now right for enhancement of the penalties.

Simon Hughes (Liberal Democrat, North Southwark and Bermondsey)

I think there was just one inaccuracy in the Minister's introductory remarks. He mentioned amendment of the Indecency with Children Act 1960. According to my reading of Lords amendment No. 67, it would extend the law protecting children under 14—rather than 13—to those under 16. It is a small matter, but I think the Minister must have received an inaccurate briefing.

Paul Boateng (Labour, Brent South)

I do not think so, but I will certainly give the hon. Gentleman reassurance that he seeks. Let me now deal with the details of Lords amendments Nos. 67 and 68. We considered carefully what was said in another place. It appeared that, although our laws on sex offences are comprehensive, it was felt that the law was inadequate to deal with some preparatory acts, as they might be described, prior to the commission of any substantive offence. Particular concern was expressed about internet chatrooms, which are a whole new phenomenon with which parents and, now, the law must deal. In Committee, Lady Blatch cited three cases in which children had been lured by men over the internet into meetings and the intention or result was a sexual crime. I have received briefings on that from both the Federal Bureau of Investigation and our own police during the last 18 months or so. The problem is global, and these people operate globally—and in ways that require a response. Lady Blatch pointed out that no action had been taken in two cases, and said that that demonstrated the inadequacy of, in particular, the Indecency with Children Act 1960. At present, however, the Act can apply only to those of 13 and under. In two of the cases cited by Lady Blatch, the girls involved were above that age. That is a loophole, and it will be plugged. The amendment would do that in a simple, straightforward manner—and, crucially, without creating further anomalies. If it were passed, the Act could apply in respect of any person under the age of consent: it could apply to those under 16 in England and Wales, and to those under 17 in Northern Ireland. 1 hope that that provides the clarification sought by the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes). What would be the effect of the amendment? It extends the protection offered by the 1960 Act to those aged 14 and 15 in England and Wales, and 16 in Northern Ireland. If, for instance, someone were to persuade or encourage a person of 15 to commit an act of gross indecency with him or another person, that behaviour—which might not be criminal at present—could come within the ambit of section 1 of the Act. We believe that much could be achieved by that change, which is simple and straightforward, as well as being right. This is important, because I will be considering the comprehensive review of sex offences that resulted in the recommendations contained in "Setting the Boundaries". If further detailed changes to the law are required, they must be made on the basis of a sensible, comprehensive approach. They must not be complex piecemeal changes that would only add to the confusion in the law. The aim of "Setting the Boundaries" was to enable us to deal with the issue comprehensively and to avoid the anomalies created over the years by an ad hoc approach. We all want more protection for children from sex offenders. The proposed change would add significantly to that protection, without further distorting the law.

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

The Minister is right to say that this is an important matter, and we are pleased that the Government have tabled an amendment to the 1960 Act. On 8 November, Lord Williams of Mostyn, the Attorney-General, moved the amendment in column 1538 of the House of Lords Official Report. However, in that same debate, as the Minister pointed out, my noble Friend Baroness Blatch sought to persuade the Government to make yet more amendments. The Opposition remain concerned about the misuse of the internet by paedophiles. There is still a need for an even more thoroughgoing review of the law and we sought to persuade the Government to toughen the legislation, although we welcome the fact that they have taken all those matters extremely seriously. Even though more could have been done through the Bill, we hope that the Government will continue to consider the issues carefully and perhaps take an early legislative opportunity to do even more. I hope that the Minister will again pay tribute to the constructive approach taken by my right hon. and hon. Friends and by my noble Friend Baroness Blatch in another place, on this issue above all. We agree with the Government that the protection of children is extremely important and all of us—from all parties and in both Houses—are concerned about it. There is no more serious danger to children than adult paedophiles who try to entrap young children by posing as children themselves. The Minister agrees with that and I hope that the Government will continue to listen. They may take another opportunity to strengthen the law still further, as we have requested.

Simon Hughes (Liberal Democrat, North Southwark and Bermondsey)

There is a broad consensus on this important issue, which, given modern technology and the internet, has taken on a new relevance. Like others, I take a strong view, and it is right for political parties to hold firm views because that reflects not only public opinion, but our duty to ensure that people whom our society defines as children are protected. To achieve that, we need a clear law that punishes those who offend. Amendment No. 67, which applies to the Indecency with Children Act 1960, would take the indecency age limit up to 16. It refers clearly to the age of majority, which is also the school leaving age, and rightly does not add another age limit. No one should be in any doubt about that. On amendment No. 69, it is right to send a tough signal that the courts should have significant powers to deal with people who commit offences involving using, passing and dealing with indecent photographs of children. The Minister was correct that there are examples of offences involving internet chatrooms and the passing of indecent photographs. The law must be able to deal very severely with people who commit such offences. Society wants the parties to stand together and put that view; amendment No. 69, by amending the Protection of Children Act 1978 and the Criminal Justice Act 1988, would achieve it. On the amendment of the law in Northern Ireland, the Minister rightly pointed out that there is a different age of majority—l7, not 16—for these purposes. I shall not stray into constitutional areas that contain important differences, but I ask Ministers, if they find it appropriate, to consider with colleagues in Scotland and Northern Ireland whether there may be an opportunity to review the ages of majority and consent to achieve consistency in this area of law. I understand that that is entirely a matter for separate Northern Irish and Scottish legislation, and I am also aware that for Northern Ireland there is an all-Ireland dimension in terms of legislation that relates to the Republic, but the different age limits and different legislation for offences committed in Northern Ireland have been a problem over the years and cases involving the European convention on human rights have been brought. It would be sensible for the three Administrations to consider whether it would be appropriate to agree that that should change. In that context, I hope that after we have legislated it might be possible to draw up a clear, consistent and readily accessible guide to the law. These three simple amendments would amend the Indecency with Children Act 1960, the Children and Young Persons Act (Northern Ireland) 1968, the Protection of Children Act 1978, the Protection of Children (Northern Ireland) Order 1978, and the Criminal Justice Act 1988. It is all very well for us to pass such legislation; there might be people in the Library or political researchers and lawyers who can look at all those measures, but I am someone who, like others, has to try to find out what the law means, and we must ensure that the law is clear so that people can find out information without doubt. 9 pm There may be an argument for consolidating legislation dealing with children, offences against children and the protection of children in the near future. Ministers might receive the support of the Liberal Democrats if they did so. There has been much recent legislation on such matters, and it would be better if those measures were put together. The Liberal Democrats welcome the fact that the Government initiated the review of sexual offences legislation generally. Although they have allowed the review to be brought to a conclusion, the Minister makes the point that further work remains to be done. The report, which is before the Minister and has been published, will eventually lead to Parliament tidying up the legislation, some of which dates back to the 19th century and beyond. We should bring the law up to date. It is right that old-fashioned, out-of-date, difficult to understand, discriminatory legislation should be done away with. It is also right that that should be done carefully, after serious consideration, but I hope that we shall use that opportunity to tidy the law as a whole. Children, young people and those who deal with them need to know where they stand. Parents, teachers, guardians and others who are responsible need to know where they stand. Equally importantly, those who think of offending need to know where they stand. The law must be clear; there must be no confusion or complexity. The clearer the law is on such matters, the better we shall do our job of protecting young people.

Paul Boateng (Labour, Brent South)

I shall first deal with the points made by the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes). To avoid any doubt, given his initial confusion about age, I should explain that the Children Act 1960 protects children under 14—hence my reference to children aged 13—and that the amendment would change the 1960 Act so that it covered children under 16, hence my reference to children aged up to and including 15. On the other points that the hon. Gentleman makes, sometimes when listening to him speak about a range of issues, including devolution, I feel that he dwells among the angels, such is his general approach. I know of his deep and abiding faith, but I have to tell him that devolution is an area where even angels should fear to tread, so he will understand the reason why I, who most certainly am not one, do not intend to deal with devolution as he would urge me to do. Codification is a virtue to which successive generations of lawyers—the hon. Gentleman is, of course, a lawyer—and others who practise in criminal law aspire. Indeed, it is a virtue to which we all aspire, but it has not yet been achieved. [Interruption.] We are all entitled to our aspirations, and he has shared his with the House, so I shall say no more about it. I shall deal with the thrust of the argument of the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins), who generously accepted and welcomed movement in this area. I appreciate his approach. He asked me to extend my gratitude for and recognition of the work by Baroness Blatch, among others on both sides in the other place. I do so. We need to keep the law constantly under review. We are doing so. We need better to enforce existing law and the law as it will be amended. We are working closely with the police on that, improving their capability to use current law to deal with internet crime. We need to pursue the issue of law enforcement and the internet through active support for the continuing work of the internet crime forum. We need to ensure increased responsibility by ISPs—internet service providers—and other providers of chatroom services, particularly in relation to chat services for children. We need greater education and awareness of the potential dangers in using chat services for parents, children and other internet users. We are doing all that. Yesterday, we announced further major investment of some £25 million, which is aimed at developing the police's capability to tackle internet crime. No one listening to the debate, or reading the debates upstairs or in the other place, could be under any doubt that that is all activity in which we need to engage. Every penny is money well worth spending. That must be the way forward. In that spirit, I commend the amendments to the House.

PROBATION ORDERS RENAMED COMMUNITY REHABILITATION ORDERS

Sylvia Heal (Deputy Speaker, Halesowen and Rowley Regis)

With this it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments Nos. 74 and 75.

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

I do not wish to detain the House long, hut there are one or two points that I should like to make. I appreciate that the Minister has moved the Lords amendment formally, but Members will appreciate that the official Opposition were hoping that the amendments that we tabled in time, but have not been selected for debate, would be able to be discussed. We were seeking to draw attention to our consistent concern, which we have raised on several occasions—in the House on Second Reading and in Committee, and again in another place in Committee and on Report—about the way in which the Government have sought to rename the orders, which could damage the standing of such orders in the courts and the way in which the public perceive them. We felt that there was considerable importance in sticking to names that had been hallowed by usage, and that members of the public were very familiar with the terms "probation order" and "community service order". We also reckoned that we were quite clearly supported in that belief by the majority of those who are at the sharp end of the business. The point was repeatedly made that the National Association of Probation Officers was very supportive of the official Opposition's stance, which could be summarised as, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it". We felt that there was no reason to rename the orders. We particularly felt that there was a concern that, as in another section of the Bill, the new names could bring the law into disrepute, especially because of the acronyms that would result from a community rehabilitation and punishment order. One does not have to be a genius to see how, even if punishment and rehabilitation were switched around, young criminals would be referring to the orders. We had much support on that in Committee, including from Labour Members who expressed the same concerns as those expressed by people at the sharp end. I do not want to rehearse all the arguments at this stage in the Bill's passage. However, we were hoping very much that, even at this late stage, the Government might be persuaded to agree that no commencement order for the provision should be made until completion of the current review into the operation of sentencing powers under the Criminal Justice Act 1991. The Government have commissioned that review and analysis of how this sphere of law will operate, and we thought that it was only logical not to put the cart before the horse. We were supported in that stance by the Liberal Democrats, both in Committee and, I think, in another place. It was for that reason that we tabled our two amendments, both of which were called amendment (a). We were very sad that, although they had been tabled in time, neither of them were selected for debate. Nevertheless, although the Minister has moved this group only formally, we should like him to respond to our continuing concern—which was shared by Lords on all sides of the other House. We also recognise that there are continuing concerns among the professional bodies. We do not think that the Government have made a sufficiently convincing case to change names that have been in the law for many years and that—as I know from my own professional experience—are perfectly familiar to all those who are involved with the courts. Everyone knows exactly what a community service order and a probation order are. The same argument can be made in relation to other spheres of the law that we debated earlier. There is significance in titles and in using things that are familiar. As my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) said, unless Ministers can present a compelling reason for change, it is necessary not to change. We do not think that Ministers have ever made a convincing case on this matter. Moreover, not only the official Opposition and Liberal Democrat Members object to the change. If the National Association of Probation Officers does not think that the Government have it right, surely Ministers should be persuaded to think again. They were not so persuaded in Committee or in another place, but we hope that, even at this very late stage, they might change their minds. Even when a Bill is enacted, it is still for the Government to decide when to implement its various provisions. We hope very much that Ministers will decide to think again about this provision. They have agreed to think again about some of their own legislation in other spheres of the law and not to implement various provisions. After all the debates, at the very last minute they were persuaded that perhaps they did need to think again.

Paul Boateng (Labour, Brent South)

We are unlikely to be persuaded, even by the rather interesting alliance between the hon. Gentleman and the National Association of Probation Officers. We noticed that alliance in Committee where, time and again, he would refer to NAPO briefings. However, I was not persuaded then, and I am not persuaded now. We are seeking to make the names of all the orders as stated, regardless of the date that they are imposed. We do not want there to be the possibility of any confusion about non-existent differences between the names. The Opposition have become strangely attached to the rather arcane existing titles of community orders. They conveniently seem to have forgotten that the Home Affairs Committee Report on "Alternatives to Prison Sentences"—published in September 1998—concluded that the language used for community sentences was often misleading. The Committee said that the term "community service" carried with it inappropriate connotations of voluntary activity and recommended the alternative name of "community work order". We believe that the names of orders ought to reflect their content and purpose, hence our desire to change them in clauses 38 to 40. We further believe that it is right to change the names as soon as convenient.

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

I am surprised that even after all our debates, the Minister can still refer to the existing titles as arcane, as a number of Labour Back Benchers tried—as we did—to persuade him that there was no need to change. The existing names are familiar to all involved with the courts. It is not a simply a matter of an alliance between the official Opposition and the National Association of Probation Officers. All of the professional bodies at the sharp end think that there is no benefit in confusing everybody with new names.

Paul Boateng (Labour, Brent South)

I hear and respect that view, but I hear, respect and agree with the all-party Home Affairs Committee, which has a different view. That is the nature of dialectic; there is an exchange of views, a thesis, an antithesis—[Interruption.] I see the hon. Member for Taunton (Jackie Ballard) getting very excited at the prospect of such a debate. We hear the arguments, but remain unconvinced—despite the forceful advocacy of the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins). It is right to change the names as soon as convenient. We see no reason to await the results of the sentencing review which is, in any case, not a creature of statute. That review, which will report next year, is looking in much broader terms. Our need is to deal with the immediate situation and to enable community sentences to be better understood. We see no reason to put in any restriction on commencement. I understand what has been a good argument, but the time has come to move on.

EXCLUSION ORDERS

Paul Boateng (Labour, Brent South)

I beg to move, That this House disagrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

Sylvia Heal (Deputy Speaker, Halesowen and Rowley Regis)

With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments (a) to (c) in lieu thereof, Government amendments (d) and (e) to the words so restored to the Bill, Lords amendment No. 79 and the Government motion to disagree thereto, Government amendments (a) and (b) to the words so restored to the Bill, Lords amendment No. 80 and the Government motion to disagree thereto, Government amendments (a) and (b) in lieu thereof, and Government amendments (c) and (d) to the words to restored to the Bill.

Paul Boateng (Labour, Brent South)

Our amendments achieve two objects. First, they restore to the Bill a power for the Secretary of State to add to the list of factors that must be taken into account when imposing exclusion orders and exclusion and curfew conditions. Secondly, they increase the maximum length of exclusion order and conditions to two years, rather than 12 months. Amendments accepted in another place, which were moved on the advice of the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee, deleted from the Bill the power of the Secretary of State to alter the maximum period of exclusion orders and exclusion and curfew requirements of other community sentences. However, those amendments inadvertently deleted non-contentious powers that allowed the Secretary of State to add to the list of factors that must be taken into account when imposing exclusion orders and exclusion and curfew conditions. Notice was therefore given that it would be necessary to restore those powers. The amendments in lieu are designed to achieve the point of principle conceded in another place, but at the same time to ensure that the powers that ought to remain do remain. Furthermore, as a corollary to the deletion of the delegated powers to extend the maximum sentence in these matters, the Government also gave notice that we would need to extend the maximum sentence for exclusion from 12 months to two years. In so far as any further changes to the maximums will need to be carried out in primary legislation, the amendments grant courts the flexibility required to carry out the piloting of the provisions in the short term, by increasing the available maximum sentences. I trust that hon. Members will see that these changes are not contentious, and I hope that we will not long delay the House.

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

I am afraid that the Minister's trust is misplaced. We have considerable concerns on this front. Once again, the tactic is becoming clear. Whenever Ministers have something unpalatable to say to the House—this was certainly considered unpalatable in the other place—they deploy a mixture of a tone of sweet reasonableness and a weary cynicism about the possibility of anyone dissenting from their propositions. We are here concerned with some extremely important matters: exclusion orders and exclusion and curfew requirements. There is a legitimate concern about the wisdom or appropriateness of the Government arrogating to themselves such Henry VIII powers in order to add to—or even, conceivably, subtract from—judgments made elsewhere. It might prove in the end that the Government have a point, in which case, with my customary grace, I shall be happy to concede, but I am concerned about the extreme breeziness and insouciance—I use the words advisedly—with which the Minister dismissed the legitimate concerns expressed by some very distinguished Members of the other place. To prove that I am not exclusively preoccupied with my noble Friend Baroness Blatch, I will instead focus briefly on Lord Russell, whom I regard as an immensely distinguished man and a thoroughgoing humanitarian. That does not mean that he is not wrongheaded, as most Liberal Democrats are, on all sorts of matters—of which, no doubt, more anon, in the weeks and months ahead—but there can be no doubt that he is concerned with justice and the rights of the individual and with propriety in our legislation and procedures. Lord Russell is very worried indeed that the Government are riding roughshod over the views of the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee. It has been asked for, and has given, its view of the Government's proposals. That view is singularly unflattering. However, all that the Minister can do is to chuckle at any expression of dissent. I find it perturbing that he is not only grinning in a somewhat unendearing fashion but is chewing something. He is certainly not chewing on the argument. If he did so, he might see that there is some sense in saying that the Government should not take to themselves powers to amend in a matter of this kind. We are talking about the conditions of a sentence imposed on someone convicted of an offence. The idea that the Government should subsequently impose new conditions or variations in the places to which people are entitled to go, without obvious good reason or clear justification to the House, does not seem credible to me. In seeking hastily to dredge up some justification for its shabby treatment of the other place, the Government argued that there was a precedent. They looked back to the Criminal Justice Act 1991 and invoked an example of a similar procedure being applied. There is, however, a key difference, which will have penetrated your fertile mind, Madam Deputy Speaker, almost as soon as I rose to my feet. That difference is that that august body, the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Select Committee, had not been established when the 1991 Act was passed. It was not invited to pronounce and did not offer any criticism or commendation of that part of the 1991 Act. We now have the benefit of its view, which the Government disdain. Many people who are concerned with the reform of offenders and involved in the legal profession, who have experience of the probation service and who are united in a passionate belief in justice and an opposition to overweening state power will be very concerned by the Government's extraordinarily laid back and somewhat arrogant attitude. We rest our case. We are the defenders of the rights of the individual, and the opponents of the leviathan. The Minister has never been much of a champion of the rights of the individual. He has always been in favour of a big state. He is fast becoming an enthusiast for an overweening, centralised and unaccountable exercise of state power.

Simon Hughes (Liberal Democrat, North Southwark and Bermondsey)

We were in danger of getting into some general and philosophical political theory, but we skirted away fairly quickly. These amendments are important. I have a question about policy clarification, and a more detailed question on the matter to which the Minister alluded. First, will the Minister confirm that the amendments would take away the Government's power in relation to three earlier parts of the Bill—clauses 41, 45, and 46, which deal with exclusion orders, curfew orders and exclusion requirements, respectively—and mean that the Government would no longer be able to vary the possible sentence of the court? We think that that is a very important matter, and it relates to the wider debate that has already received some consideration in this parliamentary year. The Home Secretary came to the House almost a year ago to confirm the ruling of the European Court of Human Rights in relation to the killers of James Bulger. It ruled that the court should set the tariff, and not a Minister. The right hon. Gentleman indicated that the Government accepted the ruling and would act accordingly. The European Court appears still to permit Ministers to set the tariff for adults, as opposed to juveniles. That has not been corrected yet, even though some of us find it hard to understand how the European Court and the Government can argue that the courts can set tariffs only for juveniles and not adults.

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that he and his party oppose ministerial interference or intervention in setting any tariffs?

Simon Hughes (Liberal Democrat, North Southwark and Bermondsey)

I confirm that absolutely. Our view is very clear: it is for Parliament to pass the laws within which judges set sentences. It is not for Ministers to interfere to fix either the tariff or the sentence. Those are matters for the courts. We also consider that there are some circumstances in which an indeterminate sentence may be appropriate. That view is shared by the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe). The later consideration of whether the person involved should be released should also be determined only by the court, and not by Ministers. The hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) was right to ask the question. Our view is clear, and it differs from that of Conservative Members.

Tony McWalter (Labour/Co-operative, Hemel Hempstead)

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is nevertheless important for Parliament to indicate various scales and how seriously or severely it believes that certain offences should be punished? That is particularly important given that sometimes the courts have taken a very mild view on offences such as domestic violence. It has been right for Parliament to give the lead to indicate how gravely it believes that the court should consider those offences to be.

Simon Hughes (Liberal Democrat, North Southwark and Bermondsey)

There is a whole debate here. It is for Parliament to set the maximum and the minimum sentence and to review those as it thinks appropriate. The Government, or anybody else, can bring forward proposals. It is for the courts to seek consistency of sentencing across the country so that the courts do not impose arbitrary sentences in one area. It is of course open to individual Members of Parliament, to Parliament as a whole and to the Government to express a view. Sometimes the court—the Court of Appeal, the Court of Criminal Appeal, the House of Lords or the Lord Chief Justice—will pass a sentence that is intended to send a message regarding the view that society takes about a particular case. There are various ways in which it can be done, but I accept the hon. Gentleman's general proposition. I do not want to delay the House further. I want to know that in accepting what the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee in the House of Lords has required and the amendments that the Lords have proposed, the Government will not seek, in this Bill or in other legislation, to hold to the Government and Secretaries of State the power to amend the length of sentences by order, as opposed to leaving that decision to Parliament. I share that view with the hon. Member for Buckingham. If we are to provide for longer exclusion orders, longer curfews and a period for which a curfew can be imposed, Parliament must decide the maximum period, not Ministers. Will the Minister confirm that the Government have accepted that view, not just for these three clauses, but as a general matter of policy, in relation to the Bill and in general? The Minister said that in relation to these three clauses, the Government proposed to have pilot schemes looking at exclusion order and curfew provisions. Is it just a theory and a plan so far, or are arrangements in hand for it to happen? If so, where and when does he anticipate that action will be taken to start the pilots and how long will they last?

Paul Boateng (Labour, Brent South)

I will set the mind of the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) at rest for the avoidance of any doubt on tariffs and delegated powers. Tariff setting involves ministerial decision making about an individual offender. We believe that the consistent position of successive Governments—Conservative and Labour—on tariff setting for adults, which has been supported by the court in Strasbourg, is right, and we intend to maintain that position. The hon. Gentleman should be under no illusions about that. We disagree profoundly with the Liberal Democrats on that issue. On the delegated powers, those which have been removed from the Bill relate to amending the sentencing maximum within which the courts make sentencing decisions. The Government will not be able to alter the maximum or minimum period that courts can impose for those sentences. That is the effect of the provisions. Let us be absolutely clear about that. No doubt the speech of the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) added enormously to the jollity of nations but, as a performance from the Dispatch Box on a serious issue, it was a bit wanting. Indeed, the early exit polls—at least on this side of the House—are not favourable. The hon. Gentleman must not expect a Florida recount if he goes on like this. It is not possible to accuse me of breezy insouciance—that is a new one for me—on the one hand and weary cynicism on the other. Breezy cynicism, maybe, but the hon. Gentleman cannot accuse me of both.

Mike Hall (Labour, Weaver Vale)

It is an oxymoron.

Paul Boateng (Labour, Brent South)

I thank my hon. Friend, it is certainly a contradiction in terms, if not an oxymoron.

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

The Minister is a contradiction in terms.

Paul Boateng (Labour, Brent South)

I hear what the hon. Gentleman says, but I shall not go down that road. We have had an interesting debate in which serious and important points have been made. We remain firmly of the view that I have expressed and I trust that, even if hon. Members regard the amendments as partly contentious, they will not regard them as overly contentious. I therefore urge the House to accept them.

DRUG ABSTINENCE ORDERS

Paul Boateng (Labour, Brent South)

I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

Paul Boateng (Labour, Brent South)

These amendments are minor, technical and consequential

BREACH OF COMMUNITY ORDERS: WARNING AND PUNISHMENT

Paul Boateng (Labour, Brent South)

I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

Michael Martin (Speaker, Glasgow Springburn)

With this it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendment No. 82.

Paul Boateng (Labour, Brent South)

Our original enforcement proposals attracted criticism of the mandatory nature of the sentence of imprisonment for breach of an order. Our objective is not to imprison large numbers of extra offenders, but to improve compliance with community sentences and enhance their credibility. Community sentences must not be ignored or treated lightly by offenders subjected to them. All too often, I fear, however, they are, and we require a more rigorous and consistent enforcement regime. We have reflected on the representations made to ensure that clause 48 is as effective as it can be. That is the reason for the amendments, and we have revised the clause to allow more judicial discretion while retaining certainty of outcome and providing that some penalty must be imposed for every breach of a community order. We have reached the view that a fine would not be an appropriate penalty for reasons that hon. Members who have been practitioners in our courts will know only too well. In cases such as those concerned, the fine would be at a lower tariff than the community penalty breached, which cannot be right even if set aside from issues surrounding the enforcement of fines, which cause much exasperation to all concerned, not least the courts and honest, law-abiding citizens who fulfil their obligations. There are several consequential amendments to schedule 6, and I hope that they will find wide support on both sides of the House.

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

I can be very brief. I am delighted with what the Minister has said. The Government have accepted several arguments advanced in Committee by the official Opposition. I recognise the spirit in which the Minister spoke, and there is great joy in heaven over a sinner who repenteth.

SHORT-TERM PRISONERS: RELEASE SUBJECT TO CURFEW CONDITIONS

Ann Widdecombe (Conservative, Maidstone and The Weald)

I beg to move, That this House disagrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

Michael Martin (Speaker, Glasgow Springburn)

With this it will be convenient to take amendments (b) to (f) to the Lords amendment, and amendment (a) in lieu thereof.

Ann Widdecombe (Conservative, Maidstone and The Weald)

Mr. Deputy Speaker, although—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"]—I am so sorry, Mr. Speaker. It gives me great pleasure to correct myself—

Michael Martin (Speaker, Glasgow Springburn)

Order. Perhaps by the time I have finished with this, I might have been demoted to Deputy Speaker.

Ann Widdecombe (Conservative, Maidstone and The Weald)

Mr. Speaker, I add to my correction belated congratulations and hope that that will make up for my mistake. We are content with Lords amendment No. 100, but we believe that it would be improved by our amendment (a) in lieu, or, if that is a hopeless case, by the inclusion of amendments (b) to (f). It seems extraordinary that, both in this and in the other place, the Opposition should have met with such resistance from the Government to our proposal to exclude from home detention curfew people who have been placed on the sex offenders register. The refusal of the Home Secretary to budge until faced with defeat in another place will do little to reassure the public as to his commitment to protect them from some of the worst offenders. The most recent statistics issued by the prisons Minister make grim reading. They give added impetus to our amendment (a), which rightly provides for the end of the disgraceful system of special early release whereby prisoners leave custody even before the halfway point of their sentence. To date, 26,609 such lucky convicts have completed their sentence in the comfort of their own homes, thanks to the generosity of the Home Secretary who solves his prison population pressures by the simple expedient of sending the prisoners home. Among those released in that premature fashion were 58 people convicted of manslaughter; seven of attempted murder; 235 of homicide or attempted homicide; four of incitement to murder; 3,437 of wounding; 178 of assault on a police officer; 33 of cruelty to children; 4,273 of drugs offences; 162 of arson; 319 of violent disorder; and 2,487 of burglary—to name but a few. Should we, therefore, be surprised that between them that collection of not insignificant offenders has committed a further 1,003 crimes while on the scheme? That means 1,000 more people who might never have been victims but for a scheme introduced by a man who claimed to be tough on crime and tough on the causes of crime. Those statistics are merely an addition to the scores of people who are unlawfully at large and to the hundreds who have breached their conditions. We take the victim somewhat more seriously, so although we should like to press amendment (a) to a vote, in the likely absence of success for the proposal to remove the scheme altogether and to consign it to a disgraceful history that we cannot too soon forget, we at least want to limit the application of home detention orders. Amendments (b) to (f) would do that. Amendment (b) would exclude from eligibility for the home detention curfew scheme those convicted of assault on police officers. I remind the Minister of the statistics I cited: under the Home Secretary's scheme, 178 people who were convicted of assault on a police officer were released from prison before they were halfway through their sentence. What message does that send to our police officers? It is hardly surprising that we have problems with recruitment and retention, when the message from the Government is, "Don't worry, if you assault a police officer, you'll be getting out earlier than ever before". Amendment (c) attempts to address what appears to be a gross inconsistency on the part of the Government. On one hand, they are proud of the fact that they managed to implement the policy on burglary—"three strikes and you're out"—introduced by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard). Yet at the same time as glorying in that, they are passing a law that would make it possible for people who receive the minimum sentence for a third conviction to be released earlier than they would have been otherwise. That is a complete contradiction. It is nonsense. Amendment (e) similarly addresses a contradiction. The Minister will be well aware that, under the immigration rules, entry into this country can be denied to people who have been convicted of crimes that can attract a sentence of 10 years or more. However, people who have been convicted of such a crime can, under the home detention curfew, be let loose in the community. We will not let people who have been convicted of such crimes into the country, but if they are convicted of them here, we will let them loose into the community. Amendment (d) would give the court the ability to override the exercise of Executive power and it would provide for the court to be able to say that the special early release scheme would not apply to a particular offender. If the Minister has any respect for the independence of the courts, I would have thought that he would at least welcome amendment (d). Amendment (f) endeavours to ensure transparency at the point of trial, so that it would be clear to the victim—who at the moment is bemused by the fact that the sentence served does not remotely match the sentence handed down—whether the extra early release will or will not be applied. The home detention curfew scheme is probably the clearest possible message that the Government could send that they are soft on crime, soft on the cause of crimes and wholly indifferent to the fate of the victims who have been created by people who have been released from prison but who would not have been released but for the scheme. Therefore, those victims would not have been created but for that scheme. The Minister should accept our amendments but, in the surprising event that he decides not to do so, we shall press them to a vote.

Paul Boateng (Labour, Brent South)

I urge the House to reject all the amendments and to do so unequivocally. I regret the right hon. Lady's strident tone and her complete failure to recognise that there might be another view. There is another view and it is shared by Members on all sides of the House who have a clear and unambiguous record that demonstrates their determination to see that the House deals adequately and properly with crime and offending. That fact is evidenced by the Select Committee on Home Affairs giving all-party support to the home detention curfew scheme. Let us not forget that the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins) put his name to an all-party report that specifically recommended the home detention scheme as providing adequate protection to the public because of the tagging element. It also made the point—a point that I reiterate—that the scheme gives prisoners an opportunity to readjust to life outside prison. That, rather than the shallow rhetoric of the right hon. Lady, is the best way to protect the public.

Ann Widdecombe (Conservative, Maidstone and The Weald)

rose—

Paul Boateng (Labour, Brent South)

No, the right hon. Lady has had her say. She can now listen and accept that there is another view. That is all we ask. We do not ask her to accept our view, but to recognise that another view can be rooted in concern to protect the public. That is the view shared by her hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth) and her colleague on the Front Bench, the hon. Member for Surrey Heath. [Interruption.] It is no use the right hon. Lady denying that, because we have got the paper and the hon. Member for Surrey Heath has signed it.

Ann Widdecombe (Conservative, Maidstone and The Weald)

Will the Minister now admit that my hon. Friends the Members for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth) and for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins) actually said that they believed in tagging as an alternative to prison, but not as a means of early release?

Paul Boateng (Labour, Brent South)

Methinks the right hon. Lady doth protest too much. I make no such admission, and the absence of the hon. Member for Surrey Heath is glaring testament to the truth of my assertions.

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

Will the Minister give way?

Paul Boateng (Labour, Brent South)

No, I will not. We have informed the House—[Interruption.]

Michael Martin (Speaker, Glasgow Springburn)

Order. Front-Bench Members seem to be getting very excited.

Paul Boateng (Labour, Brent South)

rose—

Ann Widdecombe (Conservative, Maidstone and The Weald)

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. [Interruption.] I do not go in for bogus points of order. Will you confirm, Mr. Speaker, that it is a tradition of the House, even if not a binding rule, that when one Member has referred to another, especially disparagingly, he then gives way? The Minister referred to my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow). Should he not give way?

Michael Martin (Speaker, Glasgow Springburn)

Those are matters for the Member's discretion, not for the Chair.

Paul Boateng (Labour, Brent South)

I made no reference whatever to the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow). I referred to the hon. Members for Aldershot and for Surrey Heath. For once, the name of the hon. Member for Buckingham did not come to my lips. We have no intention of scrapping the home detention curfew scheme; it has operated highly successfully since its introduction, and we are taking measures to strengthen it still further. The proposal is concerned with statutory safeguards and public protection, and I commend it to the House.

Simon Hughes (Liberal Democrat, North Southwark and Bermondsey)

The debate was in danger of petering out and needed resurrecting, and I am glad that we have received some encouragement. The remarks of the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) were predictable because when we looked at the selection of amendments, we foresaw a rerun of the debate that took place in the Committee of the whole House, in which the Tory party attacked the home curfew and home detention schemes. The Tories' criticism is wrong because they start from the principle that people who are sent to prison must be kept there for as long as possible, irrespective of whatever benefit there might be in releasing them.

Ann Widdecombe (Conservative, Maidstone and The Weald)

indicated assent.

Simon Hughes (Liberal Democrat, North Southwark and Bermondsey)

The right hon. Lady agrees—such people should be imprisoned for as long as possible. It does not matter that we have one of the highest prison populations in Europe, that our prisons are full and we are having to build more, or that prison appears to have no effect on the crime figures. Putting more people inside and keeping them there longer appears to be the Tories' answer to crime and disorder. I have to tell the right hon. Lady that, as the Minister of State and the Home Secretary have said, the evidence does not support that answer. The evidence shows that the vast majority of people who are released before the end of their sentence—always on the basis that they can be recalled if they reoffend—not only stay on the straight and narrow but start contributing to the community. They begin earning and are no longer a burden on the state, whereas it would cost a fortune to keep them in prison. Outside, they can once more pay their taxes, look after their kids and contribute to family life. Of course, we must monitor the schemes, but the Minister was right to point out that the matter was tested by the Select Committee, which includes representatives of all parties, and there is a widespread view that we should try to reduce sentences where the risk of doing so is acceptable.

Ann Widdecombe (Conservative, Maidstone and The Weald)

The hon. Gentleman seems to be easily dismissing the 1,000 victims who have resulted from the scheme. He has said that most people do not reoffend, but does he agree that a significant number do and that that should give pause for thought? If not, what would he say to the victims?

Simon Hughes (Liberal Democrat, North Southwark and Bermondsey)

I absolutely share the right hon. Lady's concern that, as a Parliament and as a country, we must ensure that we better look after victims. The right hon. Lady and I, together with hon. Members across the House, have sought to increase the rights of victims and the protection for victims. If we never take any risks, there is only one logical conclusion: we lock someone up—

Simon Hughes (Liberal Democrat, North Southwark and Bermondsey)

If we take the view that we should protect victims to the maximum, we would keep offenders locked up for ever. We would never let them out. Then, of course, apart from the other people inside, there would be no victims. In all the cases under discussion, release would take place only after a risk assessment. If, after a period of trial and experience, a judgment is made that we should adjust the measure, adjust it we must. For the right hon. Lady to argue, so early in the scheme, that we should scrap it would not only prevent many people from starting a life of law-abiding activity early, but would mean that one of the incentives for the prisoner was removed. For the first time this evening, we will support the Government in a Division. We believe that the scheme should continue. Enlightened penal policy demands that we retain the initiative and make sure that we use it wisely. To abolish it tonight would be wrong.

After Clause 60

Paul Boateng (Labour, Brent South)

I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

Michael Martin (Speaker, Glasgow Springburn)

With this we may discuss Lords amendment No. 154.

Paul Boateng (Labour, Brent South)

Amendment No. 102 provides new statutory duties to assess and manage risk and to consult and inform victims, whereas these provisions form the second part of the measures to be known as Sarah's law. The provisions in this part tighten existing protections and create new protections against sexual and violent offenders. They tighten part I of the Sex Offenders Act 1997. A number of other measures strengthen the protection afforded to victims by, for example, allowing the court at the time of sentencing to restrain an offender from certain actions, such as contacting the victim. They also provide for the Secretary of State to regulate the flow of information about the discharge of registrable offenders between and from institutions that detain them. That will help to ensure that accurate, updated information is available to the authorities about where such offenders are. This important package of measures should be seen alongside and as an integrated part of a whole that includes the other measures that we debated at the commencement of our deliberations today. I commend them to the House.

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

I recognise that the Government have tried seriously to address the important issues on sex offenders. We acknowledge that the Government have tried to incorporate in the Bill some important extra powers and to tighten further—as the Minister put it—the 1997 Act to recognise the appalling crimes that have been committed in recent times. We repeat our earlier point. We hope that the Government do not regard this as a completed task. We said that the Government will need to keep under review the problem of internet-related sex crimes. We hope that the Minister will confirm that those matters will be kept constantly under review. We believe that there might have to be further legislation to address some of the points that were made by my noble Friends. I hope that the Minister will confirm that in the spirit of seriousness with which all parties have taken these crucial issues tonight, as they did in the other place. I do not want to detain the House for long on these amendments, but I hope that the Minister will give us that reassurance when he winds up this short debate.

Simon Hughes (Liberal Democrat, North Southwark and Bermondsey)

We, too, made it clear from the outset that we hoped that there would be a consensus among the parties to amend the legislation at the first opportunity. In the summer, I said that, having reflected on the events surrounding the tragic death of Sarah Payne and the newspaper campaigns that followed, the Bill offered opportunities to make some improvements. Some of us took the view from the beginning that the Sunday newspapers, such as the News of the World, were wrong to propose such a remedy, and we were proved right. It resulted in victimisation and inaccurate identification of people, who were confused with possible sex offenders. People tried to be judge and jury. That was an unsatisfactory and unhelpful approach. It was noticeable that the newspaper was unable to carry on the campaign because, as we predicted, it did not secure the co-operation of individuals. It was important, however, for the public to learn three things. First, wherever they lived—in London, Portsmouth or elsewhere—they could discover what the local police policy was on dealing with people who were on the register. Would the police regularly record their presence? Would there be a regular check, and, if so, how regular would it be? The public are entitled to know, in their communities, what the police policy is. They are also entitled to know what the probation service policy is, because they are entitled to a sense of security. They are entitled to challenge the authorities—to challenge the way in which the authorities deal with people who are in the community, but are clearly a potential risk. What the public are not entitled to know—I think that there was general consensus on this—other than in an exceptional case to which I shall come shortly, is exactly where people live who may at some time in their past have committed a particular offence. That is wrong, first, because those concerned are entitled to rehabilitation and support while they return to society and, secondly, because if people are concerned or suspicious about a certain household, a certain estate or a certain resident—throughout my time as an MP, people have frequently come to me with such concerns—the duty of all of us is to ensure that the police are alerted and that they, the social services and the probation service check what is going on so that the law can act. But it is the law that must act, not individuals, although the law will have been prompted by the concerns of individuals.

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that one of the most significant developments to emerge while these issues were being discussed was an incident in south Wales, where a mob of ignorant and prejudiced people confused the terms "paediatrician" and "paedophile" and made an appalling attack on someone who was actually an extremely well-qualified medical specialist? Does that not demonstrate the dangers of mob rule, which, sadly, has been fuelled by some of the less reputable parts of the media?

Simon Hughes (Liberal Democrat, North Southwark and Bermondsey)

Of course I agree. The summer produced frightening scenes in many of our communities. People were encouraged by rumour and innuendo to believe that they could deal satisfactorily in their own communities with people who, in many instances, were not offenders, although they might have shared a surname or a first name with an offender, or might have resembled someone who had appeared in a newspaper. We learned a clear lesson: that it is for Parliament and public authorities to respond to public concerns. In the context of the proposed Sarah's law, we should note that Megan's law was not very successful in the United States. It would have been a bad idea to import it to the English legal system.

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

The hon. Gentleman is making some powerful points. Does he agree—further to what my hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins) said—that one of the most depressing and alarming features of the summer's public demonstrations was the sight, on our television screens, of children who had obviously been exhorted so to do holding placards urging, for example, the imposition of capital punishment for sex offenders? Was that not utterly wrong, and should not the House deplore it?

Simon Hughes (Liberal Democrat, North Southwark and Bermondsey)

Of course it was wrong, but in many cases those children's actions were instigated by their parents and other adults.

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

I said that.

Simon Hughes (Liberal Democrat, North Southwark and Bermondsey)

Yes. Children were being used. We condemn the putting of children in the front line in other countries to make a case for adults standing behind them. It is exactly that sort of manipulation of children that I join the hon. Gentleman in condemning. I have a question for the Minister about a matter that we suggested could be included in the Bill, but which does not feature in the Lords amendments. I know that there are difficulties in this regard. Lords amendment No. 154, which proposes a new schedule to the Sex Offenders Act 1997, contains a section dealing with people who give notice of their intention to leave or return to the country. That is obviously proper: if people are leaving the country we need to know that they are leaving, and if they are returning we need to know that too. There is, however, a category of people who are not caught by the law: people who commit offences abroad—they might be British citizens—but who then return to this country. I know that there are difficulties with ensuring that we know about all those people, but reciprocity of civil and criminal judgments is now common practice and there is much more collaboration between countries. It is increasingly possible for the police, the National Criminal Intelligence Service, Interpol and others to be aware of people's movements, particularly if they have been subject to an order in another state. I shall give an example. In the United States, the reporting requirements and obligations on a convicted sex offender to remain on the register are the same as in this country or even tougher and there is no reason why we should not be told when a person leaves American jurisdiction to come to ours so that the remaining processes can be dealt with satisfactorily. However, it is no consolation to people in any constituency in the United Kingdom to know that there is a general system for ensuring that those who have committed sex offences are known and are being monitored, but that some will slip through the net. What progress have the Minister and his colleagues made in working out the legislation that we clearly need to plug a loophole that has been used and is a worry to a considerable number of the people of this country?

Paul Boateng (Labour, Brent South)

The hon. Gentleman refers to people convicted of sex offences abroad who move or return to this country. That important issue is being examined by a review group including the police, the probation service, children's organisations and others to see how best to strengthen the law. Although sex offenders are often wicked and determined people who seek to mask their movements across international boundaries, co-operation between police forces in this country and abroad is increasing. We need to link that with the provision of more information to our people and legations overseas. Those issues are being addressed and I have no doubt that the House will return to them to take forward and strengthen the law. Members on both sides of the House can agree that continuing vigilance is necessary, but there is all the difference in the world between vigilance and the actions of vigilantes. Vigilance is an attitude to be adopted; the actions of vigilantes are to be deplored. We move forward from the events of the summer and the inspiration of Sarah Payne's life, but the tragic circumstances of her death mean that we must create something that does her honour. As such, I commend the amendments to the House.

FAILURE TO SECURE REGULAR ATTENDANCE AT SCHOOL; INCREASE IN PENALTY

Paul Boateng (Labour, Brent South)

I beg to move, That this House disagrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

Michael Martin (Speaker, Glasgow Springburn)

With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments (a) to (c) in lieu thereof.

Paul Boateng (Labour, Brent South)

I commend amendment No. 106 to the House. Concerns have been expressed that a stiffer penalty for failure to secure regular attendance at school would be unduly harsh in certain circumstances. Having listened to all the arguments, we propose to create a new and additional aggravated offence for truancy with a maximum penalty of a level 4 fine and/or three months' imprisonment. That would leave unchanged the current offence under section 444 of the Education Act 1996, but the new and additional offence would require parental knowledge and a failure to act without reasonable justification. We had a good debate in Committee and there was a good debate in the House of Lords. The points that were made by the hon. Member for Taunton (Jackie Ballard) have been taken on board in our deliberations and in our amendment. 10.30 pm Our objective has always been to get parents to court, so that the seriousness of the offence can be brought to their attention—that is our purpose; it is not the imprisonment of parents. The failure to appear in court to answer a summons for that aggravated offence would allow the issuing of a warrant to secure attendance. That is enormously important. Anyone with any experience in the matter knows the importance of bringing home to parents in those circumstances the seriousness of their children not attending school, but the higher penalty would be linked only to the most serious cases where parents failed to take their responsibilities seriously. We do all we can to help parents to educate their children, but ultimately we need an effective legal sanction for parents who, despite extensive help, still do not fulfil their duty. At the moment—we have to face the fact—the sanction is simply not working. Eighty per cent, of parents prosecuted for school attendance offences fail to turn up at court. They are mostly fined in their absence, and the fines are sometimes as low as £1. That cannot be right. We must send a different message. I commend the measure because it does that. It builds on good practice in Newham, with police, education welfare officers and social workers all working together. It gives the courts, the police and education welfare the power that they need to protect and to secure the rights and interests of children in a good education. I commend the amendment.

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

As the Minister says, we had a good debate in Committee, but he did not refer to the equally important debate in another place, where there were extremely good speeches not only by Baroness Blatch but by Earl Russell, who spoke for the Liberal Democrats. One phrase came to mind. When Earl Russell criticised what the Government were saying, he used words that many of us will understand were accurate: This clause altogether over-rates the power that some parents have over teenage children. Nevertheless, we recognise the spirit of what the Government are seeking to do. There was an important debate in Committee and in another place on the role of responsible officers and parents in relation to children who repeatedly play truant. That problem plagues many schools in many parts of the country. There will be a small group of persistent truants whose parents, as the Minister says, simply do not care to encourage their children to attend school, so we recognise that the Government are trying to deal with an important issue. The Minister did not refer to what Baroness Blatch said. She wanted to know the extent to which the schemes to reduce truancy in schools that have been put in place already at very great cost have been successful. Right across the country local authority schools have received money to help them produce strategies for reducing the number of young people who are truanting from school.—[Official Report, House of Lords, 31 October 2000; Vol. 618, c. 927–9.] She tabled questions for written answer about the result of the Government's policies. To all her questions, Baroness Blackstone's answer was that the Department did not know and that it would be disproportionately costly to find out the information. That is not an acceptable answer. We are talking about the use of taxpayers' money. If strategies are being developed, surely both Houses need to be given the proper answers. I hope that in due course there will be reconsideration of the importance of this House knowing chapter and verse about all that. If we are to discuss the issues of truancy seriously, we need to know how existing systems are working. It is not acceptable for the Government to say that it is disproportionately costly to find out the information. If Parliament does not get the information, who on earth is going to get it? I hope that the Minister will respond positively to that point, which we think is important. We also welcome the contribution that the Liberal Democrats have made on the issue, both in Committee and in another place.

Jackie Ballard (Liberal Democrat, Taunton)

As my noble Friend Earl Russell—whom the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) so much admires—said in a debate in the other place, he would have preferred to delete clause 69 entirely. As the Minister said, I tried to achieve the same objective in Committee. However, as my noble Friend was too late to attempt to delete the clause, he moved an amendment providing that it would affect only a parent whose child failed to attend school with the knowledge and consent of the parent or other adult responsible for securing the child's attendance at school.—[Official Report, House of Lords, 8 November 2000; Vol. 618, c. 1550.] The other place accepted the amendment, which seems to have the same effect as the Government's amendments in this group. In the other place, however, it was widely accepted that, although a parent can register a child for school and even see the child through the school gates, the child can subsequently leave, and it is very difficult for the parent to know about or to control that truancy, which obviously occurred without parental knowledge or complicity. It was also accepted that it is important to distinguish between parents who could not care less where their children are and parents who make every effort possible to ensure school attendance. I still maintain that a £2,500 fine or three months' imprisonment is not the right way to deal either with parents who are culpable and plain inadequate or with parents who are simply not coping. I suspect that, even with the threat of such penalties, a large percentage of those parents will not turn up in court. They probably believe that the courts would not imprison them—especially if they have other, younger children—and that the courts would realise that they could not pay a £2,5000 fine. I suspect that the?1 fines that the Minister mentioned were imposed because courts realised that people could not pay more. A?1 fine may sound ridiculous, but the courts may have realised that the parents did not have the wherewithal to pay a larger one. I think that ever more help and support for parents, not ever heavier penalties, are the answer to truancy. We have to help ensure that parents are able to bring up their children responsibly. The Lords were constructive in their opposition to clause 69, and I am pleased that the Government have responded constructively to their improvement of the Bill. However, although I believe that the clause is improved, it would have been better if it had not been included in the Bill at all.

Paul Boateng (Labour, Brent South)

I referred to the debate in the other place, and I linked it with the very good debate that we had in Committee in which the hon. Lady played an important part. We are still not at one with her on the issue, but I suspect that we never shall be. Although we desire the same objective, we approach the issue from a different perspective. I commend the work of Earl Russell and of my noble Friend Lord Bassam on the issue. The deliberations of the other place have refined and developed the approach to the issue that we share with Earl Russell. That approach enables us to tackle the problem in a manner that sends a clear message. I really do feel that we cannot accept fine levels in which the sum of £1 features. The notion that a £1 fine could ever be appropriate is absolutely absurd. We are not prepared to accept that such fines could ever be appropriate. Information on the fines levied is not available centrally and could not be obtained except at disproportionate cost. However, we know from research that the fines levied are lamentably low. The hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins) referred to the evidence of success in tackling truancy. We have stemmed the flow in truancy that took place in the 1990s by determined action on the part of my right hon. Friends the Secretary of State for Education and Employment and the Home Secretary, whose Departments have jointly taken initiatives in this area. I would commend to the hon. Gentleman and to Baroness Blatch a visit to one of the schemes; the one at Newham is particularly helpful. They would gather from such a visit that it is possible, through concerted effort by social services, education, welfare and police, to make a difference. Our amendments give them and the courts the power to tackle this problem, and I commend them unreservedly to the House.

Simon Hughes (Liberal Democrat, North Southwark and Bermondsey)

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. We have come to the end of the substantive debate and we will now go through the formalities to deal with the remaining amendments on the Order Paper. Given Mr. Speaker's interest in trying to modernise our procedures and the struggle that the occupants of the Chair and Members have had throughout the day in trying to following the procedure, could I ask whether there is a way in which all the non-contentious business that comes back here can be processed at a logical time or without having to go through this House? A lot of material comes back to us, but only a certain amount causes any contention at all. Could that matter be referred to whichever parts of the system are looking at modernising our procedures so that those here—let alone those outside—can understand what is going on?

Alan Haselhurst (Deputy Speaker, Saffron Walden)

The hon. Gentleman—who has long experience of this House—ought to know that it is not necessary to raise that matter on a point of order at this point of the proceedings when it is perfectly open to him to write to the Procedure Committee to ask that it consider these matters. From the Chair, I can only proceed in line with what is laid down.