I support the amendment, but before speaking to it I must apologise to the Committee for some wrong information that I gave on Monday, which the Minister with her habitual acuity—to use one of her favourite words—picked up. I said that the London Probation Service had issued warnings to 60 per cent of its staff. In fact, I should have said 60 personnel. I misread my notes, and I apologise for that. The worry, though, is that those 60 personnel include some very senior members of staff, which is the onus of my concern.
Previously, one strength of the Probation Service was that it was responsible for both offender management and interventions. The introduction of NOMS has separated the two. Whereas the tasks connected with offender management appear to be left more to the public sector, the intervention tasks seem more often to go out to contracting. I wonder if that is not a difficulty that might not be revisited. As the right reverend Prelate said, a clearer statement of which probation services should remain—not just for three years but for ever—might remove this problem.
Offender Management Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Lord Ramsbotham
(Crossbench)
in the House of Lords on Wednesday, 23 May 2007.
It occurred during Committee of the Whole House (HL)
and
Debate on bills on Offender Management Bill.
About this proceeding contribution
Reference
692 c693 Session
2006-07Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamberSubjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2023-12-15 11:23:42 +0000
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_399731
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_399731
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_399731