I have been most interested to listen to both of the previous speeches. I am bound to say that I am not convinced by either of them that there is any need for the new clause proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, or the amendment to it proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham. I say that in part because not only, as the noble Baroness said, does the Probation Service abide by those principles at present, but Clause 2 repeats most of what is in her proposed additional clause.
On the argument between the noble Baroness and the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, he will undoubtedly have noticed that Clause 2(4)(c) includes the phrase, "““the proper punishment of offenders””."
Is the Probation Service involved with punishment? The answer must be no. Is it concerned at any point with the proper punishment of offenders? The answer must be yes. It does not impose the punishment; it is not supposed to. The noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, may think this simple, but I think that the phrase ““proper punishment”” means a punishment awarded by those properly assigned the task of punishment; namely, the courts.
I fully agree with everything that the noble Baroness said about the Probation Service, and indeed with the more detailed approach of the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, as I agree with the quotation from the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice about the relationships that must be created between probation officers and those who are subject to the Probation Service’s attentions. Of course that relationship involves resettlement, rehabilitation, and ensuring the absence of reoffending, but if I had to choose between the amendments of the noble Baroness and the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, I would not leave out, "““the proper punishment of offenders””,"
because at some point, as I have already said, the Probation Service must consider whether the person whom it is supervising has to be returned to the custody of the courts for appropriate punishment. As the noble Baroness said, the courts have the discretion not to impose any punishment at all, but it is theirjob to impose it if they so think. Moreover, I believe it is the responsibility of the Probation Service in appropriate circumstances to send the offender back to prison so that the possibility of proper punishment may be considered.
As to whether one wants to hide away from the general public the fact that the Probation Service is concerned with punishment at any point, if this is to be recorded in a new clause—I believe that Clause 2 deals with this sufficiently already—it is probably beneficial that the public are aware that although the Probation Service’s principal task is rehabilitation and relationships, it must unfortunately from time to time consider the failures that require the possibility of the courts imposing punishment.
Offender Management Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Lord Borrie
(Labour)
in the House of Lords on Wednesday, 16 May 2007.
It occurred during Committee of the Whole House (HL)
and
Debate on bills on Offender Management Bill.
Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
692 c207-8 
Session
2006-07
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
Subjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2023-12-15 12:31:50 +0000
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_397406
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_397406
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_397406