Offender Management Bill

moved Amendment No. 18: 18: Clause 6, page 5, line 19, after ““person”” insert ““or organisation”” The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendments Nos. 18 and 19 deal with different points, but have been grouped. I think that it is for the convenience of the House that I deal with them together. In Committee, we dealt at some length with Amendment No. 18. I simply want to say that I believe that legislation should be clear to those involved, and it is not immediately clear to everyone in the voluntary sector and the outside world that ““person”” also covers organisations. In the light of my own work and experience, it is absolutely clear that some alarm bells might be rung in the voluntary sector if people interpret the legislation to suggest that these arrangements should be with a ““person””. There is a great sense of corporate responsibility in the best of the voluntary sector in which everyone feels that they carry, individually and collectively, the responsibility for what is being done, how money is being spent and how the objectives are most effectively achieved. For that reason, I cannot understand why we are limited—there may be an over-riding legal argument, which I have yet to hear—to this concept of ““person””. If my noble friend and the Government are determined to use ““person””, they at least should add ““organisation””, which would clarify the situation immensely. If my noble friend suggests that this could be clarified in guidance, that would be helpful, but I cannot see why the point cannot be made plain inthe Bill. On Amendment No. 19, I have noticed the very helpful Amendment No. 24 standing in the name of my noble friend, which is a move in the direction concerning a lot of us. But when policy is made, it is important that we think hard about means as well as objectives and general purpose. To give the Secretary of State responsibility for ensuring that professional training is properly resourced seems very sensible. This is happening in many parts of the education sector, including higher education, where departments of state with particular interest in aspects of the work are able to finance it. As I have argued before, if we are to take professional training and preparation seriously, it cannot be approached just on the back of an envelope, switched on and off, and improvised and arranged at short notice. People have to makesound arrangements and be confident that those arrangements will be sustained over a sensible period. In that context, I urge my noble friend, even at this stage, to take seriously this issue of means for achieving the ends. I beg to move.