Offender Management Bill

I recognise the background of and basis for this amendment tabled by the noble Lords opposite. I share their concerns to ensure that staff are competent to do their jobs. I reiterate that not only do I share those concerns but the Government are completely committed to the maintenance of the highest standards of delivery, because that is the only way in which we can achieve the outcome that we all wish. Similar amendments were proposed in another place but were rejected, as it was accepted that placing training requirements in the Bill is unnecessary in the light of safeguards already contained within and outside the clause. It is important to remember that no such formal requirements on training apply to equivalent public sector staff performing the same duties, which is the issue that we rehearsed earlier, and that none of the powers proposed is different from those exercised by equivalent public sector staff.Even if we ignore those factors, we contend thatthe successful track record of private companies in delivering custodial services already offers assurance that they can be relied on to use competent and properly trained staff. The private sector is no different from the public sector in seeking to ensure that it benefits from a trained and competent workforce. All private prison contractors require any newly appointed staff to undertake training prior to commencing their duties. That also applies in the public sector. Training may vary between contractors, but the goal is the same: a workforce with the necessary skills to deliver the contract. Before being able to do any of the tasksthat Parliament will have had the opportunity to determine, a non-PCO grade would have to be authorised by the prison director to be a competent person to do so, and one of the key tests that a director would employ would be to satisfy himself that the person was suitably trained. In private prisons, unlike in the public sector, the contract enables financial penalties to be levied for operational failures, which is a powerful incentive for directors to use only staff with the necessary skills and training.It is also worth remembering that the controllercan examine training packages, attend sessions and observe outcomes first hand. The amendment is also vague because it givesno definition of what ““appropriate”” means in this context, nor does it make clear who would make that assessment. In reality, such considerations are clearly already being undertaken by the director as the clause is drafted. I hope that, having heard my response, the noble Viscount will feel able to withdraw the amendment.