Offender Management Bill

My Lords, Amendment No. 18, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Judd, is on—I hope he will not think I am being offensive—a narrow, rather legalistic point. If he will forgive me, I shall not address that; it will be interesting to see how the Minister responds to it. In Amendment No. 19 the noble Lord returns to the issue of training, which occupied so much of our energy in Committee. He is right to bring it back. In Committee, noble Lords on all sides expressed a concern that there was no reference in the Bill to something as essential as training. In approaching the issue of what should be in the Bill, my first principle is that one should be looking to set a benchmark that everyone should seek to attain, but one should not try to put into the Bill something that is so prescriptive that it writes out of the scene those—I am thinking in particular of the smaller charities—whom I wish to encourage to take an active role in achieving success under contestability, getting the contracts and providing the services. I agree with what has been said: what is under discussion on this amendment must be informed by the Government’s position on Amendment No. 24. When I saw that amendment I was extremely encouraged. There have to be some reassurancesfrom the Minister about the implications of that amendment, but at first blush it appeared to provide a good balance between ensuring good practice and avoiding the heavy-handed prescription that could serve to shut out the smaller charities from bidding for contracts. I accept that when we get to government Amendment No. 24 there will be issues about the words, in subsection (1), "““The Secretary of State may publish guidelines about… qualifications””," and, in subsection (2), "““The Secretary of State must publish guidelines under subsection (1) in relation to work””." But when I looked at the implications of that, I found it reassuring. I thought the Government might well have found a way through the training minefield. Of course I am not going to jump to conclusions—we have not heard the Minister on that amendment—but I have to say to the noble Lord, Lord Judd, that it is my expectation that I may well be satisfied with the government amendment. That is why I do not offer my support to him at this stage, because I suspect that his amendment will be withdrawn pronto because of Amendment No. 24.