AIMS OF THE SERVICE (Hansard, 14 November 2000)

§ The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Paul Boateng)
I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
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.

§ Mr. Boateng
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.

§ Mr. John Bercow (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.
834 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.

§ Mr. Norman Baker (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?

§ Mr. Bercow
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—

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

§ Mr. Bercow
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.]

§ Mr. Tony McWalter (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?

§ Mr. Bercow
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".

§ Mr. McWalter
indicated dissent.

§ Mr. Bercow
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 (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.

§ Mr. Boateng
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.
836 I am glad that the House has found the amendments acceptable. I do not think that there is much more to be said

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

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
With this it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendment No. 4.

§ Mr. Boateng
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.

§ Miss Ann Widdecombe (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.
837 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
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.

§ Mr. Boateng
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.