Offender Management Bill

moved Amendment No. 33A: 33A: After Clause 26, insert the following new Clause— ““Prison officers: qualifications and supervision After section 8A of the Prison Act 1952 (c. 52) there is inserted— ““8B ““National framework for qualifications of officers (1) The Secretary of State must publish guidelines about any qualifications, experience or training required to perform the work of a prison officer. (2) Guidelines under this section may make different provision for different purposes. 8C Minimum standards for supervision (1) The Secretary of State must publish minimum standards for the supervision of prison officers by senior officers. (2) Standards published under this section must set out— (a) the level of seniority required for the supervision of another officer; (b) minimum periods of time required for, and frequency of, supervisory meetings. (3) Standards published under this section may establish guidelines about the conduct of supervision.””.”” The noble Earl said: My Lords, this amendment will oblige the Minister to publish guidelines on qualifications, experience or training for those permitted to work as prison officers and to publish minimum standards for the supervision of prison officers. Its purpose is to probe the Government further on their plans for the prison officer workforce. Last Thursday your Lordships debated the Leitch report on skills. The threat to our future prosperity posed by our comparative lack of development of low and medium-level skills was made clear. There is a recognition that we need to be more effective as a nation in this area. Our education system has disappointed young people and excluded them by not providing adequate vocational qualifications. We have not made available the apprenticeship schemes for young people to train. There is a gulf between the standard of development of our social care professionals and that of many continental countries; that is most apparent in our children’s homes. The social care workforce White Paper Options for Excellence, published in October 2006, promised a move to learning organisations staffed by professional and reflective practitioners. While I recognise the important difference between work in the secure estate and that of social care, there is much common ground, as the noble Lord, Lord Judd, pointed out. There is, I admit, also the problem of the churn of inmates in prisons, but I hope that the Minister can say that his ambitions to some extent overlap the Options for Excellence White Paper. The Lord Chief Justice recently quoted Thomas Holmes, who wrote about young offenders in 1900: "““The great majority of boys and girls go wrong … because of the indifference, idleness, or worthlessness of their parents. I am persuaded that it is not the poverty of the parents, nor the environment of the children, not the possession of criminal instincts that lead the greater bulk of boys to go wrong, but the indifference and incapability of parents””." Of course that is simplistic, but it must be an important part of prison officers’ work in rehabilitating offenders to provide the positive family role model that many inmates have never experienced, and to sustain constructive and clearly bounded relationships with offenders. Only a learning organisation with professional and reflective practitioners is likely to be able to deliver these rehabilitative relationships. Because the past history of inmates is likely to be a strong force in undermining those relationships, officers need to reflect and to be able to step around the pitfalls. Many officers also share the same background as the inmates, which complicates matters. It is most welcome to learn that the first joint training between probation officers and prison officers has begun. Nevertheless, there is a glaring gap between the degree-level qualifications of one profession and the low level of qualifications required by the other. It is very troubling to learn that the prison officer induction training has now been reduced from eight weeks to seven; I would appreciate a rationale from the Minister for that. A prison officer is expected to train further as part of his development, but I am concerned that the current numbers of inmates may prevent prison officers having the time to do so. I spoke to a senior officer in a private prison, who contrasted the level of manning in the private sector with that of the public sector, and complained that, as his prison lacks adequate staff, he cannot use his specialism in drugs work to train other officers. The significantly greater staff turnover again suggests that some private sector prisons may pay less attention to staff development. Will the Minister say whether private sector prisons provide their prison officers with similar opportunities for training and development to those with which prison officers in public prisons are provided? It is important to recall recent reports from the Chief Inspector of Prisons. In Committee, the noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman, quoted from those; they have been referred to earlier today, so I will not repeat them. However, I was prompted to table my amendment partly because of a letter from the Attorney-General in her previous role, which indicated that staff supervision was a matter for the private provider at Yarl’s Wood immigration removal centre and was not covered by the contract. Supervision is a vital element of continual professional development. It is essential to developing reflective practice, and indispensable in the safe management of vulnerable but troubling people. In the social care sphere, it implies regular, one-to-one supervision by a senior practitioner. According to the minimum standard, each member of staff in a children’s home must be managed individually by his line manager once a month, and new workers must have more frequent supervisory meetings. Such supervision consists of ensuring that the home’s policy and procedures are followed to assist the practitioner through discussion to come to a clearer understanding of his relationship with the residents. Hitherto in the prison estate, supervision has been understood to be the simple presence of a senior officer while officers are on a wing. I hope that this notion of supervision is changing. All this costs money. One needs to free staff from their daily work for development. One needs to free senior practitioners from their important tasks, or hire expensive consultants. My concern is that inertia may win, and the Government may not attain their goal of reducing reoffending by 10 per cent by the end of the decade, unless such requirements are made explicit. We need to raise our ambitions. Norway provides its prison officers with a year’s training at a college after their first probationary year in a prison. It requires officers in training to do months of community service, and enables them to visit and observe services overseas. Indeed, they often come to this country. We in this country are notorious for our failure to invest in skills. Our productivity remains stubbornly low in many areas as a consequence. I look to the Minister for reassurance that his eye is firmly on a steep improvement in the training and supervision of prison officers. I beg to move.