---

Offender Management Bill

It has certainly been another week to forget for the Home Office. In the past few days, the Government’s flagship policy to combat antisocial behaviour has been shown to be failing, with six in 10 antisocial behaviour orders being breached. In its autumn performance report, the Home Office announced that it was failing to meet its own crime and reoffending targets on a range of issues, and the perception of crime among communities throughout the country is on the rise, with heightened expectations of yobbish behaviour on the streets. Based on the contributions from the Labour Benches this evening, it does not look as though things are getting any better for the Home Office. The hon. Member for Batley and Spen (Mike Wood) made a powerful speech, delivering a devastating critique of the Government’s handling of the probation service. He talked about the undermining of the service. His comments were backed up by the contribution of the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard), who challenged the Government’s figures and the targets set for the probation service. In particular, he asked for evidence about how the Bill would cut reoffending rates, as indicated in the regulatory impact assessment. Certainly, it would be useful to take evidence on that matter in Committee, using the new procedures for Bill Committees. It is a pity that the Home Secretary has set his face against any evidence sessions, possibly for fear of what they might reveal. The more traditional message of complete and utter hostility to any private sector provision was most aptly demonstrated by the contribution of the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell). Things did not get much better in the speech of the hon. Member for Selby (Mr. Grogan), who, despite his offer of some Christmas cheer for Members on the Treasury Bench, condemned the lack of local accountability in the Bill and highlighted his opposition. Further probing questions were put by the hon. Members for Llanelli (Nia Griffith), for South Swindon (Anne Snelgrove) and for Stroud (Mr. Drew). Despite the best efforts of the hon. Members for Preston (Mr. Hendrick), for Kingston upon Hull, North (Ms Johnson) and for Bridgend (Mrs. Moon) to strike a slightly more supportive tone, a clear impression of disquiet on the Labour Benches has been given. As we have heard from several speakers, the problem is that the Bill still requires significant amendment if it is to help rather than hinder improvement in protecting the public and make a real difference in addressing current reoffending rates. The probation service has been racked with change and uncertainty over the Government’s time in office, which has damaged morale and undermined the focus of the service. The position was summarised well in the other place by Lord Ramsbotham, the former chief inspector of prisons, when he said of the service:"““It really does not know whether it is coming or going.””—[Official Report, House of Lords, 3 November 2006; Vol. 686, c. 556.]" As my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier) made clear, the service is struggling to cope with the demands on it, with 150 staff short in London and 1,000 vacancies nationally. My hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr. Malins) highlighted some of the practical problems of providing court reports and set out the issues that might result from the shortages. Against that backdrop of uncertainty, instability and overstretch, we have seen case after case in which criminals under the supervision of the probation service have gone on to commit murder, rape and a host of other serious offences. The Government have used that damning picture to put the focus on the probation service and the need for the wholesale reform before us today. However, it was a serious mistake, in view of the impact on morale, for the Home Secretary to make his scathing comments to prisoners in Wormwood Scrubs. I note that my hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Derek Conway) rightly argued that our debate on the Bill should not be about bashing the probation service. Conservative Members certainly recognise the hard work, service and commitment of probation officers and the difficult challenges that they face. I acknowledge that the Minister made similar points in an earlier intervention. The Government are less keen to draw attention to a criminal justice system that promotes the early release of those in custody while prisons are bursting at the seams and the introduction of a Human Rights Act 1998 that has led to such confusion within the system that steps have to be taken to ensure that officials do not put the interests of convicted criminals before the protection of the public.