First, I thank everyone who has contributed so constructively to this short but interesting debate. There has been much expertise from around the Committee. For example, the noble Baroness, Lady Stern, was able to explain the reality in Scotland from her first-hand experience. I was very interested in how the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, referred to children’s services, where there is a parallel. There was also a very powerful parallel with race relations from my noble friend Lord Dholakia. We do not differ so hugely; there are common areas. The fact that there are different structures does not mean that the issues are different. The point that I was trying to make, which the noble Baroness, Lady Stern, drew out, is that there is a real difference when you have the duty to co-operate in the Bill.
I welcome the support shown by the noble Baroness, Lady Gibson, in the first instance, and her question, because I still say that there is an extraordinary lack of mention of the Prison Service, which is a distinct body—we mention other distinct bodies. It is such an important part of the management of offenders that I find it unnerving that the Bill is completely silent in that respect. I was grateful to the Minister for highlighting the capacity and the potential of the structures that we already have. That was part of my argument.
I know Doncaster well. In fact the Butler Trust, which I was responsible for, has given recognition to resettlement work. Resettlement is between prisons and the community, and it has an incredibly important role; it specifically locks the Probation Service in to what we are doing. My belief, which I stick to, is that the duty to co-operate has the potential to change culture, as we have seen in a short space of time in Scotland. While I was grateful to the Minister for drawing our attention to Clause 3(3), the arrangements under that provision, "““may in particular authorise or require””,"
another person, so it is still a kind of optional extra.
I thank everyone, including the Minister for her response. I hope that she may indeed consider a little more fully what we have been discussing so interestingly this evening. I may wish to return to this on Report, but for the time being I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 2 [Responsibility for ensuring the provision of probation services]:
[Amendments Nos. 16 and 17 not moved.]
Offender Management Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Baroness Linklater of Butterstone
(Liberal Democrat)
in the House of Lords on Monday, 21 May 2007.
It occurred during Committee of the Whole House (HL)
and
Debate on bills on Offender Management Bill.
Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
692 c498-9 
Session
2006-07
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
Subjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2023-12-15 11:12:24 +0000
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_398529
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_398529
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_398529