I believe that I have fulfilled the requirements.
Members of another place expressed genuine anxiety about the risk of conflicts of interest if one organisation proposed and provided outcomes for offenders. They feared that advice might be skewed towards the outcomes that the organisation provided. Another place amended the Bill to require individual providers of probation services and their officers to ensure that their advice to courts and the Parole Board did not give rise to any conflict of interest.
I have carefully considered the points that were raised in another place together with concerns that were expressed here earlier. I now believe that it would be helpful to deal with the matter on the face of the Bill. I have a small quibble with the Lords amendment because it places a duty on individual providers and officers, whereas we believe that it would be appropriate to give the duty to the Secretary of State, who is better placed to take the appropriate steps to ensure that the conflict of interest does not arise.
I am grateful for the assistance of the other place in making the improvement and I hope that Government amendment (a) will help. I believe that we have tackled the spirit of the other place’s concerns. I commend amendment (a) to hon. Members.
Offender Management Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Lord Hanson of Flint
(Labour)
in the House of Commons on Wednesday, 18 July 2007.
It occurred during Debate on bills on Offender Management Bill.
About this proceeding contribution
Reference
463 c382 Session
2006-07Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamberSubjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2023-12-15 11:56:31 +0000
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_412310
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_412310
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_412310