Offender Management Bill

The debate is less contentious that those that we have held so far. I am grateful to the Minister for accepting the thrust of the arguments in the other place and those that were drawn to his predecessor’s attention in Committee. As a Member of Parliament and having declared my interest as a recorder, I raised our concerns about the conflict of interest that might arise if a provider of a probation service had an interest in the recommendation that he or his organisation made to the sentencing court—be it the Crown court or a magistrates court. Clearly, some progress has been made, thanks to discussions in another place on conflict of interest. I should like the Minister to explain in greater detail the difference between Government amendment (a) and the Lords amendment. They are similar in intention but there are significant differences of detail. The Lords amendment states:"““In carrying out their functions under this Part, and in particular in providing any assistance to the courts and to the Parole Board for England and Wales, providers of probation services and their officers shall ensure that such assistance does not give rise to any conflict of interest””." Let us leave aside for the moment the argument about whether the Secretary of State or the provider of probation services is the appropriate person to fulfil the requirement. If I got into that, I would repeat the arguments about the top-down delivery of probation services and so on, and I do not want to do that. However, there is a difference between whoever keeps an eye on the risk of conflict ““ensuring”” that it does not occur and his—as is suggested in Government amendment (a)—having"““regard to the need to take reasonable steps to avoid””" conflict. That is a very long-winded way of saying, ““we’ll do our best.”” I prefer the Secretary of State to be placed under an obligation that he should ensure that there is, so far as practicable, no risk of a conflict. The issue might have to go back to the other place. If so, between now and then, I suggest that the right hon. Gentleman consider the difference between ““ensure”” and"““have regard to the need to take reasonable steps to avoid (so far as practicable)””?" If he can persuade himself that it would be better to insert ““ensure”” rather than the alternative, we would be completely ad idem, as opposed to just wishing to travel down the same path. The issue is not a matter of semantics; there is a real difference between the two proposals as drafted. I urge the Minister to do something about that if he can. The Government amendment in lieu refers to the necessity to"““take reasonable steps to avoid (so far as practicable) the risk that…the provision, in pursuance of the arrangements, of assistance to a court or to the Parole Board””." That is a welcome paragraph. The amendment then refers to the risk that"““the carrying out, in pursuance of the arrangements, of any other activities, might be adversely affected by any potential conflict between the provider’s obligations in relation to those activities and the financial interests of the provider.””" That broadly reflects the thrust of the second half of the Lords amendment, so my concern there is of no account. Simply because I am happy to accept, for present purposes, the Government amendment in lieu—I am not going to take this matter to a dispute—I urge the Minister to take into the account some of the remarks that I have made on the wording, so that the obligation on the Secretary of State is that much firmer than it currently appears to be. If the Minister cannot offer me that help, could he please explain the Government’s requirement that there should be that obvious difference, between ““ensure”” and the necessity to take reasonable steps?