Schedule 1
Offender Management Bill
6:30 pm
James Brokenshire (Shadow Minister (Homeland Security), Home Affairs; Hornchurch, Conservative)
Before we leave the schedule, I would appreciate clarification on a few technical points. Paragraph 1(1) states:
“A probation trust is a body corporate.”
I assume that it is intended to establish the probation trusts as companies limited by guarantee rather than as any other corporate structure, but I would appreciate the Minister’s confirmation of that point.
Paragraph 1(2) states:
“The name of the trust is that specified in the order establishing it.”
Will the Minister consider tabling an amendment to include any subsequent order amending it? Clause 4(1)(b) states that the Secretary of State
“may by order...establish a probation trust for purposes specified in the order”,
so in those circumstances, the name would be as stated in the subsequent order rather than in the establishing order.
Paragraph 2 states:
“A probation trust is not to be regarded as the servant or agent of the Crown”.
The Minister might recall, although maybe notwith fondness, our discussions on the Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Bill. I would be grateful if he were to confirm the status of probation trusts under that Bill and in connection with any associated liability.
Paragraph 4 deals with the removal of an appointed member. It would be helpful for the Committee if the Minister were to clarify the circumstances envisagedfor the removal of a member, so that it would not be done peremptorily or unreasonably, given that those members’ functions might sometimes include raising issues about the maintenance of probation services, which might make Ministers or the Government uncomfortable. We need to ensure openness and dialogue without fear of removal.
I come to paragraphs 6(2) and 8. We have debated general employees, but in connection with the chief executive, probation trusts might have issues attracting suitable members and executives to drive them forward. Particularly if we enter a competitive and dynamic situation in which other providers try to muscle in on the market, it is important not to leave probation trusts at a competitive disadvantage by allowing the Secretary of State to refuse certain arrangements. Some clarification on the specific issue of chief executives in addition to our wider debate on general employees would be helpful.
Paragraph 12(2) states that a probation trust “may not hold land”. Will the Minister confirm that that includes land in its broadest sense, and that the provision is in no way intended to fetter the probation trust’s ability to hold leases, to have other holdings, to provide its services from such properties or, indeed, to have offices at such properties? The paragraph mentions managing “land held by another”, but I would appreciate clarification to ensure that that will not be an unnecessary fetter.
Is the statement of accounts required by paragraph 13(1)(b) the same—assuming that the probation trust is a company limited by guarantee and established under the Companies Acts—as the requirement to file accounts? Will the accounts be one and the same, or will two separate sets be prepared on a different basis? If there is to be duplication, why is it necessary? And will there be a requirement for a separate financial statement to be audited, as later paragraphs of the schedule suggest?