Sentencing Bill

Committee (2nd Day) (Continued)

Amendment 77

77: After Clause 17, insert the following Clause— “Unpaid work requirements: community work(1) The Sentencing Code is amended as follows.(2) In paragraph 3 of Part 1 of Schedule 9 (restriction on imposing unpaid work requirement), after sub-paragraph (1)(b), insert—“(c) that the unpaid work is work undertaken for a non-profit organisation, social enterprise, voluntary organisation or local authority.”.”Member’s explanatory statement This new clause would prohibit private sector involvement in unpaid work as part of a community sentence.

My Lords, I rise to move this amendment on behalf of my noble friend Lord Woodley, who is a little unwell today. Amendments 77 and 135 are in his name.

As a lifelong trade unionist, I have seen too often the damaging impact that privatisation can have on public services; in pursuit of maximising profit, costs are too often cut to the bone, often starting with workers’ pay, terms and conditions. The quality of service goes down, while the cost to the taxpayer goes up, and we are left with the worst of both worlds.

Privatisation has failed especially badly when it comes to the justice system. Probation is the classic example: it was part-privatised by the last Government, who had to renationalise it five years later because the service was close to collapse. Take prisons: private prisons are on average 47% more violent than public prisons, according to research published by the Guardian. Yet still we build more of them, with, of the three new prisons announced by the Government, two to be run for profit. Quite apart from the practical problems that come with outsourcing, it seems to me to be morally wrong for private companies to profit from prisons or probation, or indeed any part of our precious justice system. With this in mind, Amendment 77 seeks to address concerns that the Ministry of Justice is preparing to let private companies profit from unpaid work orders, also known as community service.

This issue has been highlighted by Napo, the probation staff union. The union even told me that large, profitable supermarkets and high street bakery companies had expressed an interest in exploiting this free labour. Since then, as the Bill has made its way through the other place, the same concern was raised strongly and still Ministers have not yet ruled out this option. Noble Lords should recall that community service in London was privatised in 2013 and it was an utter disaster. There was a lack of supervision on sites, a lack of workers, a lack of tools, and offenders were sometimes crammed into unsuitable and unsafe vehicles. Napo took action by referring the matter to the International Labour Organization as a breach of the Forced Labour Convention. The ILO found in favour of the union and, as noted earlier, that privatisation collapsed.

All this amendment would do is add a simple safeguard to the Bill, which would mean that only non-profit organisations such as charities, social enterprises and local authorities would be able to oversee this unpaid work. I hope your Lordships agree that this is a sensible and reasonable safeguard as we expand this form of punishment.

I turn to Amendment 135. There are two aspects to this which were previously explored by my honourable friend Kim Johnson in the other place. First is the call for the Government to give serious consideration to taking electronic monitoring out of the hands of the private sector, which has failed us so badly on too many occasions, and into the Probation Service, where it belongs. As was mentioned at Second Reading, this is a key recommendation from the Justice and Home Affairs Committee, arising from its excellent inquiry into tagging. It is common throughout Europe for the probation service to be in operational control of tagging day to day, so why can we not do that here? There may be strong voices in the MoJ saying that it is impossible, that the state does not have the capability to do this, but I urge the Minister to fully investigate the feasibility of insourcing this vital work, examining relevant international experience closely.

The second part of this amendment deals with a specific issue that has been raised by the Prison Officers’ Association, which is concerned that its members will be told to fit tags on prisoners, pre release, as part of the Bill. If a private company such as Serco has the contract for electronic monitoring, surely it must be its staff who fit the tags, not hard-pressed prison officers. Prison officers already facing immense pressures day in, day out should not be expected to take on such additional responsibility.

I hope that in his response the Minister will be able to offer assurances that unless the whole tagging system is brought into the public sector in a well-planned and well-resourced way, prison officers will not be asked to take on this extra work. I beg to move.

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Barber, for introducing the amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Woodley. He will probably not be surprised to learn that His Majesty’s loyal Opposition cannot support Amendment 77. I note the noble Lord’s commitments, but it would simply be a foolish burden to impose more administrative obligations on the public sector. It cannot be right to bar the use of a private enterprise where appropriate; the emphasis must be on “appropriate”. That should be for the Probation Service, as the commissioning body, to determine, with the Ministry of Justice having oversight.

Of course, our justice system should not be privatised, but the single issue here is delivery. This does not mean there are not benefits to be gained from working together with the private sector, especially as the current system is hugely overburdened. We should be welcoming prudent collaboration with private companies that specialise in supplying such services to community sentences, but only where it is right to do so because they are the right people and they pass the test of competition. We should not be needlessly blocking off an avenue that helps ease this strain.

This amendment is not necessary. The Probation Service is currently in the process of regaining control of community sentences. Private community rehabilitation companies had their contracts terminated and their responsibilities transferred to the Probation Service by the last Conservative Government. Community sentence oversight and management is already in the hands of the public sector, while private and volunteer suppliers provide support services. That is how it should continue.

We are in a situation where the public sector has responsibility for running and delivering the community sentences and, at the same time, can make use of the efficiencies of the private sector for supply on the ground where appropriate. Banning public sector involvement is an attempt to fix a problem that does not exist. It would come at the cost of placing undue strain on the Probation Service. If the ministry determines that prison officers should fit tags—here, I move from one topic to the other—because it is operationally sensible, then that should be done. If it deems that it is not appropriate in one prison for one reason, it can divide it up, but let us leave it as it is.

My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Woodley for tabling these amendments and my noble friend Lord Barber for introducing them in his absence, giving me the opportunity to clarify the Government’s position on the issues they have raised.

I appreciate that my noble friend’s Amendment 77 is founded on concerns that unpaid work will be privatised. To be completely clear, and for the avoidance of any doubt, I assure him that the privatisation of unpaid work is absolutely not being considered. The Government are clear that unpaid work must be robust and continue to pay back where it matters most: in our communities. The Government remain open to a full range of potential projects that help our communities. Were any of those to have any private sector involvement, it would be within the realms of the current requirement for the Probation Service to retain ultimate control and supervision. This requirement is unchanged and, as I say, we have no plans to change it.

For example, it is already possible for a private company to influence the type of projects offenders may complete through nominating suitable projects, such as graffiti removal in a local community. In these scenarios, the unpaid work would always be overseen by the Probation Service and the work undertaken would always serve a community purpose—I stress that point. We do not intend to privatise the delivery of unpaid work, but we should encourage joining up with local businesses and charities to determine how best to expand projects further and to deliver work that has the greatest community benefit. We believe that there is sufficient operational guidance already in place to support delivery in a way that benefits charitable, state or not-for-profit organisations and guards against exploiting any offenders for private profit.

Turning to Amendment 135, I will address the concerns that my noble friend raised. It is important to be clear that it is the responsibility of the electronic monitoring field and monitoring service provider, Serco, to perform the duty of installing and monitoring the output of electronic monitoring devices. I note the comment of the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, about the commitment to probation being seen as a public service. He also noted that this community rehabilitation company was brought back into the public sector by the last Government; of course, it was also the Conservative Government who put it in the private sector, where it failed, in the first place.

I thank my noble friend the Minister for his response. On Amendment 77, I noticed that he placed proper emphasis on payback to our communities from the unpaid work we are discussing, but I would hope that proper consideration is also given to payback to prisoners who face this form of punishment during their terms.

This is comparable to other community work schemes in many ways, and in previous job creation programmes there have been strong emphases on the quality of training provided and the safeguards against displacement and substitution of paid jobs. Those are important considerations that need to be taken into account in considering the programmes we are discussing in respect of prisoners.

On Amendment 135, I note and am pleased to hear what the Minister says about Serco continuing to have that key responsibility. In the light of the response on both these amendments, I am prepared to withdraw Amendment 77 and not press Amendment 135.

Amendment 77 withdrawn.

Amendments 78 and 79 not moved.

Amendment 80