Clause 2
Offender Management Bill
2:00 pm
James Brokenshire (Shadow Minister (Home Affairs), Home Affairs; Hornchurch, Conservative)
I beg to move amendment No. 4, in clause 2, page 2, line 43, leave out ‘or will be’.
May I pass on my welcome to you, Mr. Bayley? I look forward to working under your chairmanship.
Subsection (1) states:
“It is the function of the Secretary of State to ensure that sufficient provision is made throughout England and Wales”
for fulfilling the purposes of probation that we debated under clause 1. In so doing, he may make provision for probation services under clause 3. However, subsection (3) provides a carve-out in relation to that duty, and that is what the amendment addresses. The subsection states that the Secretary of State will not be required to take action or make provisions under subsections (1) and (2)
“if it appears to him that appropriate provision is being or will be made by any person acting otherwise than in pursuance of arrangements made under section 3.”
A number of issues arise from that. First, if there is a gap in provision, as seems to be envisaged in the subsection, is it right for the Secretary of State to be able to say merely that he is happy that provision will be made? That prompts the question how long he can be satisfied that that will happen. More fundamentally, is it acceptable that there should be a gap in provision?
We have heard clearly from the Government that their intention is to cut reoffending and protect the public. It would therefore seem odd if the Secretary of State could sit back and say that he was satisfied that something would be provided in due course. The amendment is intended to limit his assessment by specifying that he may rely on the exemption in subsection (3) only if appropriate provision “is being made” rather than if it “will be made”.
It is important for us to understand the Government’s thinking on how the clause will be applied, because it is fundamentally about a responsibility to ensure the provision of probation services. It takes us back to the list of purposes of probation, which we discussed this morning and which underpins the Bill by assisting the courts in passing appropriate sentences and ensuring that offenders are properly monitored and helped. It is important for us to be clear what we are talking about and what discretion the Secretary of State will be able to exercise in making an assessment under subsection (3). Appropriate provision must be engaged and the Secretary of State should not be able to rely on an exemption based on his looking into the future.
The other point upon which the amendment touches is the last part of subsection (3), which states that the carve-out will apply if it appears to the Secretary of State that
“appropriate provision is being or will be made by any person acting otherwise than in pursuance of arrangements under section 3.”
That raises various questions in my mind about what those other arrangements might be. As we understand it, probation is to be provided through the mechanism in clause 3—in other words, the Secretary of State contracting with various bodies, agencies or companies, or making provision directly. That is the backdrop, and we shall obviously debate in much greater detail—I am sure that the Minister is pleased to hear this—the acceptability of that whole structure and the issues that have rightly been raised outside and inside this House about its appropriateness and the Government’s intentions.
Coming specifically to the amendment and subsection (3), it would certainly be helpful to understand what the other provisions might be. It may be that I have misunderstood the intended structure, but subsection (3) refers to
“pursuance of arrangements under section 3.”
That prompts a question, given the breadth of clause 3, about what such arrangements might be. The approach is potentially vague.
One of the criticisms that we have levelled—I can see the Minister smiling—concerns the amount of vagueness and uncertainty. There is a thread of argument about the language and drafting that applies all the way through the Bill, which leads us, and many other members of the Committee, to be uncertain about the Government’s intentions. One specific aspect of that uncertainty concerns what other arrangements may be in contemplation. Maybe the Minister will say that the other arrangements will be introduced in a staged way, and that they will involve existing provision through probation boards and other agencies and organisations.
The amendment deals with that lack of certainty and addresses the ambits of what has been set out and the Secretary of State’s approach. We shall certainly come on to more aspects of that when we move on to the next group of amendments. We must understand as clearly as we can what room for manoeuvre the Secretary of State has in assessing the provision. In understanding what other arrangements may be in contemplation, we will at least more clearly understand the Government’s approach to this part of the Bill.