Offender Management Bill

moved Amendment No. 31: 31: After Clause 25, insert the following new Clause— ““Independent monitoring boards (1) The boards appointed under section 6 of the Prison Act 1952 (c. 52) (boards of visitors) are renamed as independent monitoring boards. (2) Accordingly, in section 6 of that Act— (a) for the sidenote there is substituted ““Independent monitoring boards””; (b) in subsection (2), for ““board of visitors”” there is substituted ““group of independent monitors””; (c) after subsection (2) there is inserted— ““(2A) The groups so appointed are to be known as independent monitoring boards.””; and (d) in subsection (3), for ““boards of visitors”” there is substituted ““independent monitoring boards”” and for ““a board of visitors”” there is substituted ““an independent monitoring board””. (3) In section 6(2) of that Act the words from ““of whom”” to the end cease to have effect.”” The noble and learned Baroness said: My Lords, I shall speak also to the amendments in my name listed in the group. Noble Lords will recall that when we debated independent monitoring boards in Committee in response to the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Stern, my noble friend Lord Bassam pointed out that the amendment required drafting changes but made clear that the Government were willing to consider it. This we have now done and the amendments before us today are the result of that consideration. Since 2003, boards of visitors have been known as independent monitoring boards, a title that more accurately reflects their role as monitors and emphasises their independent status. Some 1,800 board members—unpaid volunteers—appointed from the local community visit their designated establishments on a regular basis to monitor the care and treatment of those held in prison. Their commitment to this difficult, vital and highly responsible role is quite inspiring. When I was the Minister responsible for offender management and, therefore, prisons, I had the privilege of meeting a number of board members and I have never failed to be deeply impressed by their commitment and energy. The amendments give statutory effect to two important changes recommended by a working group established in 2000 under the chairmanship of Sir Peter Lloyd, to review boards of visitors. These recommendations were, essentially, as follows: first, to change the title ““board of visitors”” to ““independent monitoring board”” more accurately to reflect the role and functions of these bodies; and, secondly, to remove the statutory requirement that at least two members of the board needed to be magistrates. For the avoidance of any doubt, let me make it clear that the removal of the requirement for at least two members of a board to be magistrates is in no way intended to erode the significant contribution that magistrates make to the work of boards. The Government fully accept that justices of the peace bring valuable experience and knowledge to the role of board members. The clause seeks only to remove a requirement that was introduced when magistrates had an adjudicatory function in prisons. That function was removed some 15 years ago and the requirement is therefore now obsolete. Magistrates will continue to be welcome on boards as members of the local community. All the amendment does is to ensure that the boards are not required to select a magistrate in preference to another applicant who may be better suited to IMB work and who can bring special knowledge and skills of which the board is in short supply. I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Stern, for proposing the amendment. I hope this version will receive her support and the support of the House. I understand that the Magistrates’ Association was a little concerned about these issues. The boards have many excellent magistrate members, as I have indicated, and I am delighted that the Magistrates’ Association regards continued involvement in this area of work as a worthwhile activity for its members. I know that Sir Peter Lloyd, who is president of the National Council of Independent Monitoring Boards, has been in contact with the Magistrates’ Association to explain the difficulties with the current requirement and how it does little to help the many magistrates who are well suited to board work and make successful applications for places. The Government share Sir Peter’s view that magistrates can bring valuable knowledge and skills to the boards. Applicants from the magistracy will always be welcome, especially those whose background and experience would help to make boards more diverse. I understand that Sir Peter has already invited the Magistrates’ Association to liaise with the IMB national council on how this might be achieved. So perhaps I may say, cheekily, that if any Members of your Lordships’ House are minded not to apply, I ask you to desist.