Offender Management Bill

My Lords, I am grateful to the Government for considering further, in another place, whether the orders establishing or dissolving probation trusts should be subject to parliamentary scrutiny. Initially the noble and learned Baroness resisted such scrutiny, claiming that it would prejudice commercial procedures. Previously, the establishment of probation boards has been subject to parliamentary scrutiny via secondary legislation subject to the negative procedure. I argued that the powers to establish and dissolve trusts were so wide and significant that it would be right to maintain an element of parliamentary scrutiny. As the noble and learned Baroness said, my preferred route was the affirmative procedure. I recognise fully the arguments she put forward today on why it is more appropriate for the negative procedure to be applicable to these statutory instruments. My honourable friend Mr Edward Garnier took another view, which perhaps goes more to the root of the procedures in another place than to the specific importance of the instruments that may be brought forward. In this House we are still fortunate in that, if we pray against a negative instrument, we are guaranteed time on the Floor of the House, which means that all noble Lords are able to take part in debates in all cases. As noble Lords will be well aware, whether one can take part in debates in Committee off the Floor of the House on such Prayers in the other place is a matter of selection; they may never reach the Floor. Edward Garnier was absolutely right in seeking to divide another place, but I am able to accept the noble and learned Baroness’s arguments. I am grateful that the Government now have parliamentary scrutiny and accept that the negative procedure should be sufficient. On Question, Motion agreed to. 47: Page 32, line 30, at end insert- ““Interpretation Act 1978 (c. 30) In Schedule 1 to the Interpretation Act 1978 (words and expressions defined) there is inserted, at the appropriate places- ““““Officer of a provider of probation services”” in relation to England and Wales, has the meaning given by section 7(1) of the Offender Management Act 2007;””; and ““““Provider of probation services””, in relation to England and Wales, has the meaning given by section 3(5) of the Offender Management Act 2007;””.”” The Commons agree to Lords Amendment No. 47 and have made the following consequential Amendment- 47A: Page 3, line 41, leave out subsection (5) and insert- ““(5) In this Part ““provider of probation services”” means- (a) a person with whom the Secretary of State has made arrangements that are in force under subsection (2); or (b) the Secretary of State (in relation to probation provision which is the subject of arrangements that are in force under subsection (4)).””