My Lords, I support the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, wholeheartedly and am very grateful for the interventions of the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, and all the other speakers. This measure seems to be based on a profound misunderstanding of what makes probation successful. The Government’s policies on probation have slowly but inexorably moved it away from its base in local communities and diminished its relationship with the magistrates’ courts, yet those two relationships are crucial for its success. It is important to remember what probation has to offer to those whom it aims to supervise, control and reintegrate into society. It actually has nothing to offer except for its skills, persuasiveness and contacts. It cannot provide someone with a GP or a roof over their head; it is not an education provider and it cannot give anyone a job. It does not have the resources to sort out a family problem—that is the job of social services. It has no mental health or drug treatment.
Rightly, those services are all provided by various local agencies, most by the local authorities and some by the health service. Some are obtainable only through good local knowledge and local connections. Without that local knowledge, those local connections and some local legitimacy at a time when resources are under pressure, probation officers can do nothing for those whom they supervise except listen to them, advise them, assess their risk and redirect them elsewhere for what they really need.
Similarly, there is the relationship with the magistrates’ courts, which is even more extraordinary. The relationship between the probation service and the courts is crucial; it has to be one of considerable trust, built up over time. Never has it been more important—and I am sure that the Home Office understands this—that probation officers should be able to make recommendations for community sentences that the courts have confidence in. How else are the Government going to deal with the massive overuse of prisons?
Over the years, the magistrates on probation boards have been vital supporters of probation and made its case with their colleagues on the Bench. They have been supporters of the probation service in the wider community. Magistrates are respected figures in local communities, with considerable legitimacy. How will a probation board with no magistrates or local authority representatives establish the relationships that it needs?
There are other issues of legitimacy and propriety. Probation officers exercise considerable powers over the liberty of the subject. They can recall someone to prison on their own initiative. The person can stay there for weeks or even months before the Parole Board gets round to looking at the case, because, as I understand it, the Parole Board is swamped with such cases. Should these powers be exercised by a body whose governance contains no judicial persons—unless the Minister tells me that judges are to continue to sit on boards, even when they have begun to be described as businesses?
Finally, I echo other speakers in asking: is it appropriate that this order is being debated on a Friday afternoon by this process? It is a vital matter of the governance of an organisation that last year spent £0.9 billion on its work and it is of considerable importance to whether or not people can live safely in their communities. Should such changes not be debated properly by Parliament? Is this not rather an unacceptable way in which to sneak in some changes? I wondered whether the word ““sneaking”” was appropriate to use in this House but, having heard it used by my noble friend Lord Tenby, I am sure that it is. Surely this is a sneaky way for the Government to try and get through a part of a much larger plan, for which we have not yet seen the legislation.
I hope the Government take note of the strengthof feeling expressed here and the opposition of the Magistrates’ Association, the Local Government Association and all organisations that know anything of how the probation service works to make our society safer. I hope that the Government will reflect on the damage that they are doing here today, or that they did on 1 November. I support the Motion of the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay.
Local Probation Boards (Appointment and Miscellaneous Provisions) (Amendment) Regulations 2006
Proceeding contribution from
Baroness Stern
(Crossbench)
in the House of Lords on Friday, 3 November 2006.
It occurred during Debates on delegated legislation on Local Probation Boards (Appointment and Miscellaneous Provisions) (Amendment) Regulations 2006.
Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
686 c556-8 
Session
2005-06
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
Subjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2024-04-21 21:42:30 +0100
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_358010
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_358010
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_358010