| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Baroness Stern: My Lords, I too am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Gibson, for calling this important debate, and for setting out her case so clearly, fearlessly and honourably. The Government's proposals for the National Probation Service have aroused considerable interest and controversy. In preparing for this debate, we have been able to drawn on the excellent session of the Home Affairs Committee on 6 December, when the Minister appeared before the committee. We are all looking forward to the publication of that committee of the further information the Minister promised on why the Home Office changed its mind so dramatically between the announcement of the decision to keep the probation boards and that of the decision not to keep them. Yesterday a book of essays by very experienced academics was published. They do not come from ivory towers but have between them more than 70 years of experience of working in the Home Office
12 Jan 2006 : Column 376
at senior levels. They pointed out the strong possibility that the Government's plans for the probation and prison services would not work.
The idea of the National Offender Management Service in marrying the prison and probation services is based on the idea that imprisonment should be drawn closer to local communities and carried out within a framework of awareness that almost all prisoners leave prison and therefore need to reintegrate themselves into their local areas. This idea has considerable merit. The Home Secretary articulated it impeccably in his speech to the Prison Reform Trust last September when he said:
"The way forward in tackling re-offending is to draw in resources from the wider community. I see these prisons—
"becoming far more engaged with their local communities, and better at building relationships with a wide variety of other organisations. I attach particular importance to . . . [local] prisons becoming a vital part of the civic fabric of every locality".
As the noble Lord, Lord Filkin, said, that was, indeed, a speech that made one's heart leap.
As far as I can see there is considerable, if not universal, agreement that this approach makes sense, is supported by the evidence on what helps people to desist from crime, and is achievable by policy change. However, there is no such agreement on the best way of achieving it. In Scotland, for instance—here I declare an interest as the convenor of the Scottish Consortium on Crime and Criminal Justice—the method of achieving it has been to bring in new legislation which will integrate the prisons as far as possible into the local arrangements for dealing with defendants and offenders—local arrangements which are broadly accountable to local government.
In England and Wales the approach has been to diminish the importance of the local level and to bring decision-making up to regional level. These are very large regions—only 10 for the whole of England and Wales. As we saw in the latest set of proposals set out in the consultation paper Restructuring Probation to Reduce Reoffending the plan is to remove the element of local accountability for the probation service. It is on this set of proposals in particular that I wish to concentrate. I want to look at them from the perspective of the evidence on which they are based and how far they will achieve what they set out to achieve.
I want to look first at one piece of evidence used in the paper to support the proposal that all probation service functions should in principle be able to be put out to contract. I understand from what the Minister said to the Home Affairs Committee—though this is from the uncorrected proof—that there are no limits on which probation functions can be marketed—court reports, contribution to the youth offending teams and working in the multi-agency public protection panels. The Home Office document says that,
I should be grateful if the Minister could give me a little more information on the basis for that view about the benefits of competition. The latest independent report
12 Jan 2006 : Column 377
I can find on the performance of private prisons in England and Wales is the National Audit Office report of 2003. These are the conclusions of that report. First, the performance of private prisons in delivering what is in the contract "has been mixed". Some private prisons have delivered and others have not. Secondly, private prisons,
The best are better than most of the public prisons; the worst are at the bottom among the least well performing public prisons. Thirdly, private prisons have brought some innovation in the use of technology and in the way they recruit and use their employees, but,
The report concludes that the use of private prisons,
I can only assume that the evidence used for these proposals relates to a different independent evaluation. Is there such an evaluation, and if so what did it say?
I also notice that on 15 December the Commission for Social Care Inspection published its report on Oakhill Secure Training Centre, which is a privately run secure centre, a sort of children's prison, where children aged 12 to 17 are sent by courts to serve custodial sentences. The centre opened on 19 August 2004 and the inspectors went in in May 2005. They said:
"We were very concerned at the low numbers of staff on duty at the STC. Between 28 March and 24 April there was not a single day when the STC was anywhere near reaching the minimum staffing levels set by the Youth Justice Board for 80 places . . . The numbers of staff deployed on shifts meant those on duty were stretched to capacity to provide care and safety".
I must ask the Minister for some clarification. Presumably this centre was commissioned, if that is the right word, by a commissioner. When commissioning of commercial contracts is being done, is it not a requirement to see that the contractor can fulfil the contract? Having enough staff working for the company, or having a chance of recruiting enough staff, seems a very basic requirement. I would really appreciate an explanation of how this process of commissioning works, since it is so fundamental to the whole concept and structure of the plans for probation.
I shall briefly cover the responses to the Home Office consultation on the proposals. I am interested, as other noble Lords have been, in two responses in particular; that of the judiciary and that of local authorities, because they both seem to be crucial. The judiciary, the judges and the magistrates have to have confidence in the arrangements, otherwise they will not pass community sentences, more people will go to prison, and that will cost a lot more. Have the judges and magistrates responded to the consultation, and if so what was their view? The second crucial partner is the local authorities. They have access to many services that are needed for the successful social reintegration of offenders. They co-ordinate many local partnership arrangements, which are concerned
12 Jan 2006 : Column 378
with the reduction and prevention of crime. Many convicted people will live in local authority houses and their children will be known to local authority social workers.
I understand that the Local Government Association has responded to the consultation and has expressed three main concerns. First, it notes the,
Secondly, it states that the proposed commissioning model with its central and regionalised structure runs counter to current policy development to localise responsibility in decision-making. Thirdly, it states that the contracting model of service delivery may hamper partnership working and goes against the plans for all other public services. Does the Minister think that the Local Government Association comments have any validity? How does she propose to respond to them?
4.14 pm
Lord Birt: My Lords, I join the catalogue of those who have already thanked the noble Baroness, Lady Gibson, for the chance to offer our views on NOMS, in my case in favour. I start by declaring an interest as until recently the Prime Minister's strategy adviser involved inter alia in criminal justice policy. In addition, my partner is the former director general of the National Probation Service.
The criminal justice system has a number of different objectives. It aims to achieve justice in respect of victims, offenders and the wrongfully accused. It ensures appropriate punishment for the guilty. It seeks to rehabilitate offenders and, most importantly for society as a whole, its key purpose is to reduce offending.
The overall level of offending in the UK has been dropping for a decade, but there is no scope whatever for complacency, as the noble Lord, Lord Filkin, reminded us. Offending still remains unacceptably high by international standards. The high-volume crimes that cause immense trauma to millions of victims each year and which exact a high economic toll—robbery, burglary and theft—are committed by a cohort of persistent offenders many hundreds of thousands strong, a hard core of which each typically commits many hundreds of serious crimes per year. Almost all persistent offenders become known to the system as they are tried and convicted for one of the many crimes they commit, and as they move through the system's revolving doors, often over and over again.
Many offenders are victims themselves of poor parenting or of broken or dysfunctional families. Often they have been taken into care. Generally they lack skill or qualification. As the noble Baroness, Lady Massey, reminded us, some offenders are heroin and crack addicts, responsible for the bulk of acquisitive crime. Invariably, they offend many times a day to fund their habits. Continually relapsing, tragically most will retain their habit for a lifetime. Beyond those involved in high-volume crime, there are a number of
12 Jan 2006 : Column 379
other important categories of offender, including those involved in ingenious frauds, increasingly over the Internet, people who use violence, especially within close relationships, or dangerous offenders, including those capable of heinous sexual offences.
The establishment of NOMS is a critical reform, because by far the most significant way of reducing crime further is to grip those different offender populations—most importantly, the persistent offender. NOMS should see the end of the historic "pass the parcel" system of managing offenders. Contrary to the sincere fears expressed by staff, fairly articulated by the noble Baroness, Lady Gibson, NOMS will not reduce, but greatly extend and strengthen, the classic probation function of managing offenders. For the first time, it should enable a single-minded, end-to-end focus on offending behaviour during the whole of the sentence, both in custody and in the community. It should allow the development of different stratagems for different categories of offending behaviour. It should enable us to hold a single individual, the chief executive of NOMS, personally responsible for reducing re-offending over time.
As we have been reminded more than once this afternoon, NOMS represents a bold and radical reform in other ways. The introduction of a purchaser/provider split, with the offender management line holding the funds and acquiring offender services at arm's length from public, private or voluntary providers, will reward effectiveness, innovation and efficiency. Unlike the noble Baroness, Lady Gibson, I have no doubt about that, not least because of the benign impact of similar arrangements, rightly imposed by a Conservative government on both the public and private sector in broadcasting, in which I spent much of my career. The introduction of an independent production sector in particular transformed broadcasting for the better. I entirely concur with the eloquent advocacy given by the noble Lord, Lord Filkin.
Henceforth, with NOMS, institutional funds will be won only through competition. New business disciplines will be needed in prisons and probation. Widespread cultural change will be necessary. New organisation-wide systems and processes will have to be introduced.
None of this is easy. Organisational reform on this scale is presenting daunting challenges to all the dedicated people who manage and work in the component parts of the old, directly funded, historically monopolistic, correctional system.
So far, sad to say, the implementation of the blueprint for NOMS proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Carter, has had a sticky and uncertain start. NOMS does not in any meaningful sense yet exist. But, as the Civil Service increasingly aims for excellence in business skills, including finance, technology, human resources and project management, and as it increasingly draws in expertise and experience from
12 Jan 2006 : Column 380
outside its ranks, I anticipate that the service will rise to the task of making this challenging institutional reform the success that it needs to be.
We must not give up on NOMS. We should pause and consider by all means, but certainly not stop. However difficult the challenge, we must hold true to the vision. NOMS is the right reform and offers an enormous prize. We could be the first country in the world really to grip offenders and thereby to intensify our attack on crime and all its dreadful consequences.
4.21 pm
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |