Offender Management Bill

My Lords, I readily acknowledge the principled stand that is being made on this amendment by the noble Baroness, Lady Gibson of Market Rasen. She also tabled the amendment in Committee. In Committee I made it clear that we do not seek to interfere in the Government’s negotiations with those who are trying to protect more offender management services from being opened up to contestability. This amendment would add to the Clause 4 protection the provision of assistance bythe Probation Service to the Parole Board and the Secretary of State in the early release and recall of prisoners. I certainly agree with the noble Baroness,Lady Gibson, that the Probation Service provides impartial, accurate, reliable, skilled and professional advice to assist the Parole Board in making its decisions on the release of prisoners. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Gibson, I make no excuse for those being honeyed words—they describe what happens; and that is what we should be doing. The noble Baroness, Lady Gibson, argues that if this function were to be commissioned via contestability, there could be an immediate conflict of interest. I merely make two observations. First, in Committee, at col. 1032 of the Official Report of5 June, the noble Baroness, Lady Scotland, appeared to say that the reason for the Government refusing this amendment was mainly that the Parole Board Rules 2004 already provided robust safeguards and that the rules would soon be further tightened in the form of a statutory instrument. When will we seethat statutory instrument? Secondly, what is the Government’s view of the harm that would be done by adding this protection if it will exist anyway? I am rather puzzled by that.