My Lords, I warmly endorse much of the amendment. Not for the first time—I am confident it will not be the last time—I find myself very much in agreement with the arguments of the noble Earl and his clarity is to be commended. In some ways, one can make a comparison with government Amendment No. 24, concerning the Probation Service. It responded to many of the similar arguments and decided to take a significant step forward which I commend. The logic continues into this sphere.
We are agreed, and the Minister assured us at earlier stages of our deliberations, that everyone in the Prison Service is involved in rehabilitation. If we use the arguments about the challenges of rehabilitation in the context of the Probation Service, they would certainly apply to prisons. That underlines the importance of training, qualifications and relevant experience.
I am sorry to split hairs—if it is splitting hairs—but I have one query on the amendment. That concerns of the wording of new Section 8C(2)(a). I think it is too rigid. While experience and authority, which go with seniority, are terribly important, we do not want to slip into a Buggins’-turn culture. Occasionally, there will be outstanding people, who can be moved into positions of responsibility earlier than might be the usual practice, and there should be room for that. It should not just be an exception, which might cause a cultural curfuffle in the institution concerned, but it should be accepted that that is the case.
Otherwise, I am very much with the noble Earl in all that he is arguing. Apart from the logic of the Government accepting the arguments on the Probation Service, to which they responded in Amendment No. 24, the important point is that increasingly very valuable work is being done in higher education in preparing police officers. At the outset, there was a certain amount of cultural suspicion about the process in the police force, but it is now recognised, more and more, that the right sort of people, with the advantage of more training and education behind them, can increase the effectiveness in the role that they play. That underlines the importance of the amendment, but I am sorry that I have a reservation on that one point.
Offender Management Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Lord Judd
(Labour)
in the House of Lords on Tuesday, 3 July 2007.
It occurred during Debate on bills on Offender Management Bill.
About this proceeding contribution
Reference
693 c990-1 Session
2006-07Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamberSubjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2023-12-15 11:05:17 +0000
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_407604
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_407604
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_407604