Offender Management Bill

My Lords, I thank all those who have spoken. I am grateful, too, to the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, and the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, for what they have said about their proposal to extend Clause 11, which makes provision for publication and enforcement of a national framework for qualification for officers. The noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman, was right in saying that Clause 11 has got it about right, but I hope that what I say will add clarification on that so that I can give a little comfort to the noble Baroness, Lady Howarth, and the noble Earl, Lord Listowel. The noble Baroness is right when she says that in this arena there are some very skilled and committed volunteers whose contribution we would not wish in any way to undermine or discourage, as it is so valuable in keeping safe the people whom we care about. By ““the people we care about”” I mean both victims and the offenders who wish to rehabilitate and restore their behaviour. Currently the clause makes it clear that the Secretary of State may publish guidelines about any qualifications, experience or training required to perform the work of an officer or a provider of probation services and must—and I emphasise must—publish guidelines for the work that involves the supervision of and direct contact with offenders. It also requires the Secretary of State, when carrying out his commissioning functions, to ensure that the guidelines apply to all providers whether from the public, private or voluntary sector. Amendment No. 7 links to the earlier amendment which the Government opposed on Report and continue to oppose. However, I shall deal here with the amendment’s substantive effect—which is to ensure that commissioners do not exercise their power to enter into contracts unless they are satisfied that the other party has complied with these guidelines. I understand the point which the amendment is intended to address, and of course commissioners will need to be confident that a provider has enough appropriately trained staff before entering into a contract. However, that is not quite what the amendment says. It says that a commissioner shall not make arrangements with a provider unless the commissioner is satisfied that the provider has complied with the guidelines. As it is difficult to see how a new provider could demonstrate that he had complied, the amendment’s unintended effect would be to restrict the ability of new providers to deliver probation services. Clause 11 as drafted already provides what the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, and the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, would wish, and, in effect, it gives the necessary safeguards. It is already implicit in Clause 11(4) that, in commissioning services, the Secretary of State will need to be assured that the provider will be able to comply with the guidelines. I therefore hope that the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, and the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, will see that the amendment is unnecessary and that the noble Lord will agree that it should be withdrawn. I very much hear what the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, says about supervision, the need for protection and the way in which the two are now being conjoined between prison officers and the Probation Service. The fact that they are learning together, training together and developing a joint ethos is very important indeed. I shall take back the noble Earl’s comments to my colleagues at the Ministry of Justice and ensure that they hear what he said. It very much fits within the new culture that we are trying to inculcate into the service and might be something that people will want to look at in due course.