Offender Management Bill

moved Amendment No. 23A: 23A: Clause 9, page 6, line 36, at end insert— ““( ) The Secretary of State shall— (a) by regulations make provision for national qualifications for all staff employed by a provider of probation services; (b) accredit training providers for a minimum period of ten years to provide these qualifications; (c) by regulations, require providers of probation services to contract only with accredited providers to provide training for all staff; (d) require providers of probation services to employ sufficient staff with degree level qualifications as is necessary to deliver the probation purposes.”” The noble Baroness said: My Lords, as this is the first time that the noble and learned Baroness has spoken to the Offender Management Bill as Attorney-General, I hope that she—indeed, all your Lordships—will forgive me if I spend just a second saying how absolutely delighted we are with her promotion to that role. We wish her the greatest luck with it, and know that she will bring her considerable expertise to bear on the Bill. Amendment No. 23A, in my name and that of the noble Lord, Lord Judd, is exactly the same amendment that we tabled in Committee. We did so purely because we hope that when the Attorney-General speaks to her own amendment, she may be able now to give a little more detail about the proposals for training and qualifications for those in the probation services. How far has the planned new overarching qualification, at which she hinted, if not outlined, previously, been developed? Will it enable people who are qualified in one public service to get so far and then switch to the probation services by adding another qualification? Equally important is the question of the universities that will deliver not only the current qualifications but those that are proposed for the future. In Committee, a number of us commented on the fact that a contract of only four years does not allow universities to attract the highly qualified staff needed to deliver these qualifications, or indeed to develop their skills. Will the Attorney-General further assure the House that only fully trained probation officers will write parole reports for, and otherwise supervise, the most complex and difficult of offenders into the future? As I am sure she and other noble Lords will totally understand, given the current terrorist situation, that is even more essential if, as the Secretary of State said in another place, the public are to remain safe and lead normal lives, and if we are to meet the Government’s priority of reducing reoffending. Finally, proposed new subsection (1) in government Amendment No. 24 says that the Secretary of State ““may”” publish guidelines about any qualifications, experience or training required to perform the work of an officer of a provider of probation services. Yet proposed new subsection (2) says that the Secretary of State ““must””, under proposed new subsection (1), publish guidelines on work involving the supervision of offenders. Will the Attorney-General answer that point when she speaks to that amendment? I beg to move.