I am grateful to the noble Baroness for that clarification. If I understand her correctly, the definition of ““proper”” in that sentence is ““as determined by the courts””. If that is the definition of ““proper””, there is a case for the modification of paragraph (c) and where the word appears in Clause 2. The clauses should refer to ““the administration of the punishment prescribed by the courts”” so that we are clear where the activity of punishment rests.
This is important because the moral justification of punishment lies in the need of society to disassociate itself from acts that it cannot and should not condone. It is a quite understandable and fairly universal human instinct that the existence of sanctions, called ““punishments””, is the way in which a society expresses the limits of behaviour that it finds acceptable. It is the punishment administered by the courts, in so far as it is a community punishment—that is, a punishment that takes place in the community—that the Probation Service has a responsibility to administer. If some form of words can be devised that indicates that, rather than a set of words that, with respect, do not really clarify, it would be very helpful either here or in Clause 2.
The reason why this discussion is important is that this is the year in which we celebrate the centenary of the Probation Service. As well as the conference that has been referred to, there is about to be a service in Westminster Abbey recognising that centenary. In this centenary year, we are not probably helping by reorganising the Probation Service in the way suggested by the Bill. It would be particularly unfortunate if we used words that gave credence to the notion that the Probation Service consists of people who do rather soft things and do not engage in enough toughness.
In my experience, being a probation officer is extremely tough. The rehabilitative and guidance activities in which probation officers engage are extraordinarily demanding on them and their clients. In our deliberations, we need to speak in a way that expresses confidence in the demandingness of rehabilitation, in the sole right of the courts to punish and in the duty of those who are part of the criminal justice system to administer the punishments strictly within what the courts prescribe. Of course, if the terms of the punishment are broken, it is for the courts to deal with that situation, as has already been said.
I hope that some way will be found in future stages of the Bill to produce a form of words that locates punishment in the right place, defines it properly and makes clear what the role of the Probation Service is in punishment and, by the same token, what it is not.
Offender Management Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Bishop of Worcester
(Bishops (affiliation))
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 c209-10 
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_397409
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_397409
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_397409