Offender Management Bill

moved Amendment No. 28: 28: Clause 2, page 3, line 8, leave out ““or will be”” The noble Baroness said: I try not to bring back amendments that have been tabled by my honourable friends in another place. I do so with this because the core question—at col. 30 on 11 January—asked by my honourable friend, Mr James Brokenshire, in Committee in another place was not answered by the Minister. I hope that that will be put right today by the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, who I believe will respond. Clause 2(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, which we debated thoroughly under Clause 1. In doing so, he may make provision for probation services under Clause 3. However, Clause 2(5) provides an exception to that in relation to his duty, which this amendment tries to address. Subsection (5) 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 under section 3””." My honourable friend in another place pointed out that a number of issues arise from that, but one was not addressed. Let us imagine that there is a gap in the provision, as it seems to be envisaged could happen under 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? So, the Secretary of State identifies a gap and just says ““Okay, there is a gap, but I think that provision will be made, and we will leave it at that””. We have heard clearly from the Government that their intention is to cut reoffending and to protect the public—we have run over that ground several times. What appears to happen here is that the Secretary of State can sit back and say, ““Well, I am satisfied that something will be done at some time, so I do not need to step in now””. It appears to be that we will be left with a gap in provision that could arise. It may be that the Secretary of State has a good reason for thinking that the gap can exist for some time or that perhaps it is unnecessary to fill the gap at any stage. We need to know for how long the Secretary of State will allow a gap in provision to continue. But, more importantly, how will he make a judgment on whether that gap should be filled and, if it is to be filled, when should that be done? It is a matter of asking how the Secretary of State will judge the importance of a gap in provision in terms of whether it should be filled or not. I hope that by extrapolating rather more from my honourable friend’s original words that I have indicated to the Minister what I am trying to reach for here. I am perfectly well aware that no Home Secretary is going to sit back lethargically and say, ““Well, there’s a gap in provision but it will be met somehow or other””. Of course they will think, ““How do I design services to fill that gap and when do I step in?””. But we heard earlier from the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, that there is a worry that no one will have an overarching view of the quality and amount of provision available, and therefore the Secretary of State may not have the appropriate advice. I beg to move.