Offender Management Bill

My Lords, I beg to move Motion B, That the House do not insist on its Amendment No. 11 and do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 11A in lieu. My right honourable friend the Minister of State made it clear in the other place that the Government fully accept the principle of the original Lords amendment. We have always said that we need to do all that we can to guard against potential conflicts of interest. It became clear in the debates that we had that there was nothing between us on that issue. Having reflected carefully on the points that were made in debate in your Lordships’ House, we accept that it is appropriate to make a clear statement in the Bill about this fundamental issue. I should like to thank the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, for tabling her original amendment to that effect. Our Amendment No. 11A to Lords Amendment No. 11 is intended simply to make it more technically robust. Our amendment differs in two ways. First, it places the duty on the Secretary of State, rather than the provider. That is because the Secretary of State will be better placed than individual officers or providers to take an over-arching view of where potential conflicts of interest might occur and to ensure that the necessary safeguards are put in place. Secondly, we have changed the language from, "““shall ensure that such assistance does not give rise to any conflict of interest””," to, "““shall have regard to the need to take reasonable steps to avoid (so far as practicable)””." This drafting change has been made simply to cover the fact that it may not always be possible to ensure absolutely that no conflicts of interest arise. Indeed, they are inherent in the system now, with probation boards acting as both report writer and provider of community sentences. I know that the noble Baroness would wish us to continue to have that function, albeit on the face of it, it would look as though there were a natural conflict between those two things. It is not intended to make the duty less robust in any way, but simply to create a duty that works in practice and inure to the benefit of those who will wish to operate it in precisely the way that this House has indicated it should be operated. A number of mechanisms are in place to address the risk of conflict of interest. First, when the court requests a pre-sentence report, it also provides an indication of the expected sentencing outcomes, so that the report can be focused accordingly. Secondly, the report must adhere to national standards, which have been strengthened by the amendment we have made to the Bill. Thirdly, there is clear guidance as to the type and structure of report to be provided, based on the seriousness of offence and appropriate response. More generally, the development of an improved performance management framework, coupled with the introduction of commissioning and contractual relationships, will bring greater transparency to the process and make it easier to spot any potential difficulties that may arise. I hope that we will also be able to do that earlier because we will have a process through which difficulties could be ascertained. I can also confirm that, if the Government ever wished to open up the provision of court work to non-public sector providers, we would indeed set out clearly how any risks of conflict of interest would be dealt with in those circumstances. The amendment to the Bill helps to ensure that this happens. It represents a workable, compromise solution which addresses the points of concern raised by noble Lords in Committee and does that which I believe the House wanted us to do in a way that is proportionate, open and fair. Moved, That the House do not insist on its Amendment No. 11 and do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 11A in lieu.—(Baroness Scotland of Asthal.)