The noble Baroness was not there when I last looked, and I am greatly relieved because on the last occasion in Committee she told us powerfully about the role of the Lucy Faithfull Foundation in relation to the management of sex offenders. We have relied on the voluntary sector, which has developed a high degree of specialised expertise in certain areas, to help us in times of difficulty. Moreover, the Probation Service has been extremely grateful for such help and support in the past and I am sure that the service will continue to wish to secure it in the future. So those managing and working in approved premises will monitor offenders’ compliance with their licence conditions, including curfew, enforcing hostel rules and acting upon any evidence of concern as regards offenders’ behaviour. They will need to work closely with offender managers and with partners such as the police within the multi-agency public protection arrangements. Because of this, we will ensure that contracts to run approved premises are awarded to those who can demonstrate that they and their staff are competent in managing high risk of harm offenders. That will be the case whether the provider is from the public, private or voluntary sector.
As I have said, we intend to proceed cautiously. The public sector will continue to take the lead role, and provided its performance meets the requirements, the probation trust will be the lead provider in the probation area. The lead provider will concentrate on the delivery of offender management while sub-contracting much of its intervention work to other providers. But to achieve this, we need a system in place that is sensitive enough to respond to local needs, one that allows every provider to play to their strengths and robust enough to ensure that this vision becomes a reality. The Bill and the commissioning system to be introduced will allow for this. With that in mind, I hope that my noble friends will feel more confident about withdrawing the amendment, conscious as I hope they will be that that which they wish to see is actually going to be done.
The noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, raised the issue of a timetable. There is no timetable for lifting the Clause 4 restriction. The three years refers to the non-legislative commitment on wider offender management work. I hope that will enable the noble Baroness to feel more comfortable about where we are and that I have been able to give the clarity the Committee seeks.
Offender Management Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Baroness Scotland of Asthal
(Labour)
in the House of Lords on Tuesday, 5 June 2007.
It occurred during Committee of the Whole House (HL)
and
Debate on bills on Offender Management Bill.
About this proceeding contribution
Reference
692 c1033-4 Session
2006-07Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamberSubjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2023-12-15 11:29:31 +0000
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_400516
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_400516
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_400516