Offender Management Bill

My Lords, we on these Benches are sympathetic to the aims and objectives of these amendments. Perhaps it would be helpful if,in responding, the Government would also speakto their interpretation of government AmendmentNo. 24, which covers some of the same ground. Part of our difficulty with Amendment No. 24 is the difference between ““may publish”” in proposed new subsection (1) and ““must publish”” in proposednew subsection (2), and whether guidelines are enforceable. We are concerned that while we have well qualified people in the service, particularly for serious offenders, the number of serious offenders we let out on licence is likely to increase. We need to make sure that the people concerned with them have the right qualifications and experience. I feel that both in Committee and on Report, the Government have not been well served by some of the more enthusiastic supporters of privatisation and the corporate state. They tend to give the impression that we do not need to worry about these things because the private sector will provide somehow or other and, if it does not produce qualified people, we need not mind because they will be bright and they will do the work. We are in favour of co-operation and a mixed economy, but nevertheless we want to make sure that the right people are in the right place and that they have had the right training. Amendments Nos. 18 and 19 are good probing amendments for that purpose. Our discussion of this needs to tie in with what the Government mean in their rather unclear Amendment No. 24.