Clause 6
Offender Management Bill
9:15 am
Mark Hunter (Shadow Minister, Home Affairs; Cheadle, Liberal Democrat)
I want to make some specific comments in support of the amendment, which is not surprising given that my name is attached to it along with those of the hon. and learned Gentleman, other Conservative Members and my hon. Friend the Member for Ceredigion.
In advance of the Minister’s response, I find it hard to understand what he has against the amendment. I hope that he will accept that, like so many of our amendments, it was tabled in the spirit of co-operation and trying to improve the Bill, and not to put unnecessary obstacles in the way. The amendment seeks only to ensure that those who might be involved in providing probation services are appropriately qualified, which is an eminently reasonable reassurance for hon. Members to seek. It would create a requirement for the Secretary of State to ensure that those who are working as probation officers for contracted-out providers are as well qualified and well trained as current public sector probation officers.
Other hon. Members have explained why the amendment, which is important, is needed. We should not lose sight of the fact that we are fortunate in this country to have high-calibre, committed probation officers in the public sector. They are dedicated men and women who do a thoroughly professional job, sometimes in difficult circumstances. I am sure that the Minister agrees that it is self-evident that the quality of the service, both rehabilitative and custodial, depends on the individuals who provide it. The Committee needs to know how prisoners will be dealt with and supervised effectively, with the care and safety of the public foremost in mind, and how we are going to aid the rehabilitation process. In all those instances, we require appropriately and suitably qualified men and women to do the job.
Clause 3, which opens up the system to contracted-out services, could allow those without professional qualifications to work on tasks for which training is absolutely vital in helping to protect the public and to reduce reoffending. Without the high calibre of trained probation officers that a national probation service delivers, there is a danger that the effectiveness and quality of service delivery will fall. I look forward to the Minister’s reassurance on that matter.
It is essential that professional training is regulated and that the Secretary of State has a duty to determine that regulation. The training should be thorough and of sufficient duration to give staff the effective skills to do the job properly. At present, it is a requirement in law that a probation officer has a certificate of qualification in social work, a CQSW, or a diploma in probation studies, which is a two-year qualification that can be obtained through distance learning, college tutorials and supervision as part of a probation team. Staff have a protected case load during that period, and the mixture of learning and training has allowed probation officers to do their job effectively and efficiently. Without that requirement, we cannot guarantee that the calibre of officers will be up to the standard that the system requires.
Agencies require staff of a certain standard, and the multi-agency public protection scheme needs staff with both qualifications and significant experience. The Home Office model notes that those who pose the greatest risk in categories 3 and 4 must be supervised by qualified and experienced people. Hon. and right hon. Members, who, like me and the Minister, have experience of metropolitan authorities know that in London and most metropolitan councils that group of offenders far exceeds the number of trained probation officers, hence our concerns that only people who are suitably and appropriately qualified will be in a position to carry out those tasks. It is a legitimate matter of concern, and I look forward to the Minister’s response.