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 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"— that is, local 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,

"we have already seen the benefits of competition in the provision of prison services".

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 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,

"span the range of prison performance".

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,

"little difference in terms of the daily routine of prisons".

The report concludes that the use of private prisons,

"is neither a guarantee of success nor the cause of inevitable failure".

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 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,

"lack of meaningful local accountability for offender management services".

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?