Offender Management Bill

moved Amendment No. 48: 48: Clause 3, page 3, line 46, at end insert— ““(6) In carrying out their functions under this Part, and in particular in providing any assistance to the courts and to the Parole Board for England and Wales, providers of probation services and their officers shall ensure that such assistance does not give rise to any conflict of interest between their obligation to give such advice impartially and the financial interest of the provider.”” The noble Baroness said: The amendment addresses the danger that a conflict of interest may arise in the provision of services by a system of tendering for contracts under the contestability system. Concerns have been expressed throughout the debates on the Bill, within Parliament and outside it, about the conflicts of interest that could arise in certain circumstances, and my amendment seeks to find a way around that. The prime example of where a conflict might arise is where the same party is responsible for writing reports for the court as well as providing the services that might be recommended in those reports. The fear is that the party might be tempted to support its own services and generate business in that way. At the moment, the preparation of court reports appears to be protected from contestability, at least for the time being, by the provisions of Clause 4. But of course that protection may be removed at some stage in the future by secondary legislation under the terms of Clause 12. Once that has happened, there is a distinct possibility that a conflict of interest could arise. It is obvious that if a recommendation is made in a report to a court for a particular disposal, there must be no hidden interest in it. At present, it is not possible for that to happen since the reports are prepared by members of Napo, but in the future, if reports are prepared by private companies or voluntary organisations whose business is also the running of programmes of rehabilitation, it is just possible that a conflict of interest could arise. I am grateful to the National Association of Probation Officers for its helpful briefing and its support for the amendment. The amendment would add a new subsection to Clause 3. It imposes good practice on the providers of probation services with regard to the avoidance of a conflict of interest. I beg to move.