My Lords, I also cannot support the amendment. I will be brief, because much has already been said in opposition to the amendments in this group. I base my view on what happens at present and I do not share the view that probation boards and probation trusts will, in fact, involve the voluntary sector and others in developing and expanding services. Their approach to date shows that there does not seem to be too much enthusiasm for doing that. If we were to pass an amendment that in reality gives them continuing power to make those decisions, we will not make progress. It is interesting that, as I understand it, the voluntary sector, the CBI and the Local Government Association support the measures in this Bill.
I appreciate what has been said about a backstop power as far as the Secretary of State is concerned, but it is very vague. The amendment does not really say under what precise circumstances or against what criteria it might be used. Frankly, one can see that if this power were to be introduced there would simply be endless arguments as to whether the situation had been reached where the Secretary of State was justified under that proposal to intervene.
I am afraid that I share the view expressed just now that the amendment is a call for the status quo. That is what it is in reality—it is leaving decision-making on commissioning greater involvement of the voluntary sector with those who have not done it until now, and there is no indication that their views might change. The Bill and the changes being made are about a change in culture and about indicating that thereis an alternative—there are alternative providers and providers who may be able to expand, develop and improve services. If you want that kind of increased involvement and development, you do not handover responsibility for achieving it to boards which, the figures and records suggest, have not been particularly good at doing so until now.
This cannot be a debate about what might be in the interests of a probation board’s association. Surely we are talking about what is in the interests of addressing reoffending, and that must be to involve as many people as possible in the voluntary sector and elsewhere who can contribute, develop and assist with programmes in that regard.
Offender Management Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Lord Rosser
(Labour)
in the House of Lords on Wednesday, 27 June 2007.
It occurred during Debate on bills on Offender Management Bill.
About this proceeding contribution
Reference
693 c635-6 Session
2006-07Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamberSubjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2023-12-15 12:13:48 +0000
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_406138
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_406138
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_406138