Local Probation Boards (Appointment and Miscellaneous Provisions) (Amendment) Regulations 2006

My Lords, being a member of the Merits Committee of your Lordships’ House provides a special interest in statutory instrument practice. If, in a somewhat technical way, I go beyond the comment made in the committee’s 46th report,those views are my own. We have before usStatutory Instrument 2664, with its Explanatory Memorandum, along with the department’s letter set out in the 46th report, and now we have the draft of an amended Explanatory Memorandum, as promised in the department’s letter. I will concentrate on board membership, the terms of appointment and the change from seven to five for a quorum. As always, we are involved in a paper chase. Asmy noble friend Lady Anelay said, Schedule 1 to the 2000 Act confers the power to regulate and sets the minimum board membership at seven. Shortly after the Act came into force, Regulation 2 of Statutory Instrument 2000/3742 stated: "““A local probation board shall have a maximum of15 members””." That is the position today, and it is not proposed to change it in the statutory instrument we are considering. As the department tells us, most boards operate at 15 members. What is to be changed is the composition of the boards. The four local magistrates and the two local authority members, as we have been told, who have taken six places out of 15 as a result of Regulation 5(2) of 2000, are to go. No convincing explanation is given for this change. Indeed, the latest version of the Explanatory Memorandum states that the changes to be made will mean that, "““boards can be more effective in addressing local circumstances””." Is it really suggested that magistrates and local authority members do not understand local circumstances? Although at first it was said that magistrates did not have the modern skills needed—what an abused, Humpty-Dumpty word is ““modern””—this was rapidly withdrawn. Nor can anyone argue that there is not room within a board of 15 to include business acumen, human resource experience and knowledge of finance, diversity and competition, curiously angled and incomplete though this department list is. As there has been no consultation and we do not have an ex-post evaluation of the six years of the boards working under the Act, we can only speculate as to the true reasons for the proposed change. Is it just a dislike of magistrates? Most probably so. No doubt the Minister will tell the House. When he does so, will he also tell your Lordships why there is no reference to the work of Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Probation? We are also told that there are ““sleeping”” members of the 42 boards who, "““make up weight for the quorum””," as if to say in a board of 15 only seven can be expected to turn up—two of whom, with the chairman’s permission, may sleep. Indeed, the department says that most boards struggle to achieve a quorum of seven. This is given as the reason for reducing the quorum to five. What evidence does the department have for this most serious governance assertion? Has it been taken up with board chairmen and what has been their response? There is also the matter of the terms of board appointment. Regulation 6 of Statutory Instrument 2000/3342 states: "““A member of a local probation board shall be appointed for a term of three years and shall be eligible for””—" one— "““reappointment””." This is to be changed by Statutory Instrument 2006/2664 to, "““a term not exceeding three years””." This means that a board member has no security of tenure whatever. What is the reason for this change? If, as has been said, it is to pre-empt Parliament because of intended legislation, that really will not do. If it is to change public appointments practice so that board members are wholly at the mercy of the Secretary of State, this is completely at odds with repeated assurances that bodies such as local probation boards are to be strong and independent. How can anyone be strong and independent if they have to keep looking over their shoulder, given the arbitrary power conferred on the Secretary of State? The practice followed to date has not been either in accordance with the Government’s declared policies for better nor for less regulation. The Minister needs to withdraw this instrument and think again. Second thoughts this afternoon are not enough.