'It shall be the duty of the chief officer of each probation area to establish consultation arrangements with local magistrates' courts committees and local communities, to assist the probation service in the performance of its duties of reducing offending and supervising offenders in the community.'.—[Mr. Allen.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

The clause would re-establish local consultation between the probation service and magistrates. It also introduces an obligation for local probation areas to consult local communities, which are generally ill-informed about the work of the probation service. The National Association of Probation Officers is quite attached to the new clause. I wonder whether the Minister will consider it to be of value.

This proposal, too, appears to have some merit. I would raise a couple of points. First, does it require to be put on a statutory basis? I would hope that it could be achieved without being spelled out in statute. Frankly, if courts are not operating such a system, they ought to. Parliament has a tendency to impose a series of burdens on organisations, and it is terribly easy for the organisations to pay lip service to them, which results in their not being particularly constructive.

I would be interested to hear the Minister's views. There needs to be some liaison, but I question whether it needs to be put on a statutory footing.

I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Nottingham, North for allowing us, with new clause 14 and other new clauses that we shall debate later, to debate other issues linked to the Bill. I hope to find considerable common ground on some of those issues, and that many other hon. Members will be able to join a constructive debate.

I am absolutely clear that local liaison between the probation service, the courts and the local community needs to be improved. I am on record as saying that we may need to put it on a statutory footing, but I want to paint a slightly different picture, and I want a sort of Second Reading debate on this sub-issue in the hope that we might be able to get something on the statute book. It seems to me that four relevant agencies have a duty to be accountable to the local community; and then there is local government. I start with local government. The hon. Gentleman says that we need to establish consultation arrangements with local communities, and we shall come in a moment to new clause 15 and other linked issues.

The Crime and Disorder Act 1998, which was generally welcomed, established the crime and disorder partnerships, which work well. They certainly work better than the previous non-existent structures. I can speak only from personal experience of London, but the Solicitor-General, I and others in our borough participated in the local police and community consultative group, which was set up somewhat belatedly after the Scarman inquiry into the Brixton riots. That scheme was eventually rolled out and used in every London borough.

The three MPs in my borough are members as of right of that body; it also includes representatives of the local authority, and others are elected to it from community groups. It is a good forum, but it is better now that it is more formal. A councillor has that responsibility, but it is not a party political matter. Under Labour and Liberal Democrat Administrations, a councillor has been responsible for community safety and for leading the police-council interface and the coalition of collaboration. That is very welcome.

The first stakeholder—that is the word of the decade—to be included in the consultative structure is the local authority. The second group is the probation service, which has a hugely important role. To be honest, no ordinary member of the public will know who runs the local probation service; no one would know where to find the probation office; and the service is never publicly held to account in the same way as the local authority.

In an earlier debate about the probation service, my hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome argued that community service should be more visible. He did not mean that people doing community service should be marked with their prison numbers, like prisoners on a day out, but that those supervising them should have something on their donkey jacket or whatever they are wearing which signifies that those

people are doing community service as a punishment but also as a community benefit.

I am keen to increase that sort of accountability. The probation service is increasingly organised in a way that is at least compatible with the principal local authority boundaries. I guess that that is the case in Leeds and other counties, including the county that includes the constituency of the hon. Member for Beaconsfield. One can find the local authority parallel.

The third group of stakeholders is those who run the courts. My one suggestion to the hon. Member for Nottingham, North is that the structure should not include only those who run magistrates courts. The Government are now reforming the courts system to ensure an integrated administration for magistrates and Crown courts. I support that, although I am uncomfortable about the way in which it is likely to roll out, because of the danger that it might close the local magistrates courts—I would not support that.

The court system needs to be accountable, but that should apply to all the courts. To take the borough that I know best, it would be nonsense for only magistrates courts to liaise when the Southwark, Blackfriars and Inner London Crown courts clearly play a big part in the process. That would apply whether it was a permanent Crown court or one of the occasional Crown courts sitting in the area.

The fourth group that should be involved is the police service, which is responsible for enforcing the law. The police are already in the system, because they liaise with the local authority in most areas, including your area, Mr. Cran, I imagine. Of those four groups—the police, the probation service, the courts and the Prison Service—the best known would be the local chief constable, commander or chief superintendent, to whom the public would look. It is normally that person who appears at public meetings or on a public platform, if people want to know about law and order and crime.

The last group—they may not exist in every area, but if they do they should be involved—are those who run the Prison Service institutions. The constituency of the hon. Member for Nottingham, East (Mr. Heppell) includes Nottingham jail. I am not sure about the boundaries in Leeds, but I guess that Armley prison may be in the Minister's constituency. Wherever there is a big prison, whether it is open or secure, a young offenders institution or whatever, there is a public interest in what happens, whether it is successful, whether people are secure in it, whether they go out for day release and so on. My variation on the theme of the hon. Member for Nottingham, North is that the consultation arrangements ought to be between the five agencies—four law enforcement and criminal justice agencies and the local authorities.

No matter how sympathetic the Committee might be, the hon. Gentleman is pointing up one of my concerns. There is no corresponding duty on any of the other bodies to take part. No matter how hard the probation service might try, if there is no duty on the other agencies it

might not work. The other concern is that there is no audit process. There is no duty on the probation service to tell anybody how well it is doing, so we shall never know.

Again, I hope that we can feel our way to consensus. I have only two more substantive points to make, and they are going in the hon. Gentleman's direction. I am concerned about why the intention of the new clause should be for the obligation to be on the probation service. It does not strike me as obvious that the probation service should have the lead responsibility.

If we think widely about the five prospective parties to the consultation, it might be more logical for another to take the lead. I hold no brief against or in favour of the probation service, but it might be better for the local authority, or another body, to do it. The second point is exactly that made by the hon. Member for Wirral, West (Stephen Hesford). This is a reasonable probing new clause. It puts a duty on the probation service to establish an arrangement. However, it places a burden on it that it is not resourced to carry—it is terribly overstretched—in asking it to consult the community. A process might already be set up—if there is a process under the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, let us not duplicate it; if there is a way in which the police, the local authority and the community work together, let us not add another.

There ought, in any event, to be an obligation on all the parties to participate. It would be unfair to put a duty on the probation service and, possibly, on the magistrates court committee, and to give a nebulous, unspecified role to the local community, but to place no duty on the police or the courts—other than magistrates—or on the Prison Service, if it is involved. I am keen to find something that works without being heavily bureaucratic. We need something that can work easily, not a huge bureaucracy.

To put it visually, twice or three times a year, there should be at the top table at a public meeting, whether it is on the Wirral or in south London, the five people in charge of delivering the service. That way, members of the public would never ask why people are not getting tougher sentences without somebody being there to explain what the sentences are and to give accurate information. That is really important, otherwise—I have seen this, and so, no doubt, has the hon. Member for Wirral, West—there is a danger of terrible buck passing. It already happens too often. I have been at too many meetings at which members of the community meet police representatives who say, ''We cannot answer that—talk to the courts,'' while in fact the courts are not there to talk to.

In his interesting comments, the hon. Gentleman has highlighted the groups and organisations that we think should be involved in the consultation process. There are others. There are drug action teams, primary care trusts—because the probation service deals with people with health problems and abuse problems—and youth action teams. Does he agree that, rather than considering the matter from the point of view of which agencies and organisations should be consulted, a key issue is

that ordinary people should know what is going on? Information should get to them, rather than being shared and, essentially, kept secret by well-meaning, interested people from different agencies.

I absolutely agree, but, to be fair, the hon. Member for Nottingham, North has separated the process of getting people together from that of sharing information. I understand why he has done so, and the next new clause is about ensuring that the public are told. However, the hon. Lady is absolutely right that it is no good having a behind-closed-doors consultation in which the public cannot participate. That is why the initial picture that I have painted includes the opportunity for the public to ask questions of those who run the system.

To pick up the hon. Lady's important second point about other agencies, she is absolutely right that without adequate drug services—in her area or mine—questions to the police and courts about why they do not deal more effectively with drug dealers will not be adequately answered. No one will be there to answer them, although there will be second-hand information.

I selected the agencies that I did—the hon. Lady may persuade me that I am wrong and that she is right; I do not have a final view—only because they are responsible for delivering law, order and punishment. However, they need to link up with the people whom she mentioned—those responsible for youth action teams, youth offender programmes and healthcare, including drug services, in particular. Were we able to deliberate further and get the measure right before the end of the Bill's passage through Parliament, we might be able to list those other obvious partners on whom we could agree. The danger is that the list would be as long as your arm; it would be like a monster, and it might be difficult to get all those people together at stage 1. I want us to get things right, and it is no good going off at half-cock and getting things wrong.

I have one last point, and the hon. Lady or others may want to comment. As the hon. Lady suggested, there is a terrible danger nowadays that the many well-intentioned, intelligent and good people who do good and important jobs will spend more and more time in committee meetings with one another. I do not know whether Fleetwood and Blackpool are the same as Southwark and south London, but wherever I go in the country, it appears that specialists are spending more and more time talking to other specialists. That happens in a rather unaccountable, undemocratic way in forums and other partnerships whose work does not feed into local authorities or other elected bodies.

My preference, as always, is that the local authority should act as the umbrella. The public should be encouraged to go to groups of people whom they can elect and remove to make them answer questions. Those people may say, ''We have no responsibility for the courts—they're run by a manager for our borough. Here they are: ask them the questions.'' Councillors and MPs may then say, ''You're not giving us a very good answer; it's inadequate—go away and get more information.'' I am trying to achieve something that is manageable and which includes everyone. The suggestion is that we try—at least in phase 1—to

include the agencies that deal with criminal justice delivery.

I have one final point. If the opinion polls show that law and order is one of the top three concerns among our constituents nationally, it is no good just including the police. We need the people who deal with prisons, probation—punishment in the community—the courts, and law and order. That is why the germ—or the early growth—of an idea before us is a good one, and I hope that the hon. Member for Nottingham, North will be positive about collaborating with our Conservative colleagues and others to achieve something workable that could be included in the Bill before the end of its passage through Parliament.

My hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, North has highlighted an important issue. He has given the Committee an opportunity to range across the mechanisms that are in place to achieve his objective, which I share, even if I am not persuaded that the mechanism that he proposes in the new clause would necessarily assist.

First, I know that there was some concern that with the demise of the statutory probation liaison committees following the introduction of the Criminal Justice and Court Services Act 2000 the kind of consultation and communication that my hon. Friend proposes in the new clause would be lost. However, I can assure him that joint working continues to be a priority for the National Probation Service. Indeed, it was made clear in the guidance issued last year by the probation service, the Lord Chancellor's Department, the Magistrates Association, the Justices' Clerks' Society, and the Association of Justices' Chief Executives and entitled, ''Working Together—the National Probation Service and the Courts''. I have a copy of it here.

The guidance sets out extremely clearly the importance that all the parties attach to effective communication and understanding of their respective roles and the importance of their working together to achieve their shared ends. Indeed, it suggests that something like the old probation liaison committees could provide a forum to review working jointly and to plan future events. Clearly the purpose of all that activity should be to achieve improvements in the criminal justice system.

The probation service has itself developed closer links with the local community. Since the establishment of the National Probation Service there have been the new local probation boards, which have a much more diverse membership than was previously the case. They are accountable for delivering the service locally. They have to produce an annual report. They have between five and 15 members, including a Crown court judge, a chief probation officer, four magistrates, two local councillors and others who could be lawyers or representatives of the business community or the wider local community. That is another forum in which the kind of dialogue that my hon. Friend wants could take place. I entirely accept that in general the public do not know enough about the work of the

local probation services and I am keen that they should. They would be greatly reassured by what they would learn.

I acknowledge the point made by the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes) about the crime and disorder reduction partnerships, which bring in the local dimension in co-operation with others.

I remind the Committee that the new local criminal justice boards bring together the CPS, the courts, the Prison Service, the probation service, the police, the magistrates and the youth offending teams to encourage joint working in the interests of improving the operation of the criminal justice system. They will produce annual reports, and the range of issues that they will deal with covers all the points that the hon. Gentleman rightly raised. I hope that my hon. Friend will be reassured that a range of mechanisms is already in place. I am not persuaded that we need to add to those. The underlying thrust of the new clause is that there should be more effective consultation and communication, and we all share that.

I am not sure whether the Minister expressly said this, but I believe that there used to be a statutory duty, to which the hon. Member for Nottingham, North referred, between probation and magistrates. My understanding is that it was intended to be in the Criminal Justice and Court Services Act 2000 and somehow it was not included. That may be an unfair representation of the Government's position. I am also aware that a national liaison structure is in place, which picks up pretty well all the agencies that we have talked about.

I am also aware that the new probation boards have come into operation. I guess that, to be fair to the Government, it is too early to assess how they work yet. I presume that no opinion polling has yet been done to see whether anyone in the community knows that they exist. I ask out of neutral ignorance. I presume that it is too early to expect them to be there, but it strikes me that they will be known only by the type of people who apply to sit on such committees. I am not very far away from the concept of a criminal justice board; however, it should be publicly accountable as well. It should be accountable not just by annual report, which is a pretty remote form of accountability, but by a visible presence and visible accountability and by linking up with the local authority. Before the hon. Member for Nottingham, North responds, will the Minister tell me how to persuade Government to turn the criminal justice boards into a body that did not meet just to write a report but which came together with local authorities to be held accountable? That would be a very profitable development and would obviate the need for legislation, which the new clause proposes.

I am interested in the hon. Gentleman's use of the word ''accountability.'' There are arguments for electing certain judicial officers, as is the practice in the United States. That provides a degree of public accountability. There are arguments for elected sheriffs in this country to be in charge of law

enforcement in some areas. However, that is not what new clause 14 proposes. I wonder what accountability the hon. Gentleman has in mind. It is true that there will be transparency if this works, and that is important, but I am not sure that accountability will be achieved.

I understand the hon. Gentleman's point, but I did not intend to be misleading. The Minister mentioned a form of accountability: an annual report that would be available to the public. A second, and greater, form of accountability would be a personal appearance and an obligation to answer questions. The third, and even better, form, although it would be constitutionally different, would be accountability through election or public collective appointment. I was not arguing for that in this context, although it raises many issues.

We must try to establish, along with public accountability, dialogue that ensures that the sentencers understand, from listening to everyone involved, the context of what they are doing. That is particularly relevant in a week in which figures show by how much the prison population and average sentencing are increasing. We must make sure that the courts, the police and the probation service all make intelligent interlinked decisions that do not place unnecessary pressures on the system; decisions that do not have the opposite effect to what was intended.

I am almost certain to press this to the vote. The Minister has shown why Sir Andrew Gordon, the chief executive of Ofmin, dubbed him the first beacon Minister of this Government. I am totally persuaded by my hon. Friend, although there were times during the contribution of the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey that I lost the will to live—[Laughter.] In view of the eloquence of my hon. Friend, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.