Amendment 11 would remove the upper limit of “not more than ten” for members of the domestic abuse commissioner’s advisory board. In Committee, the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, asked
“why put an upper limit in legislation?”—[Official Report, 27/1/21; col. 1706.]
This question was supported by my noble friend Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, who clearly also felt that a domestic abuse commissioner should be sufficiently trusted to decide for her or himself how many people they need on their own advisory board over the lower limit of six provided for in the Bill.
Although it was a straightforward question, reading in Hansard the Government’s response in Committee still leaves one unclear as to the answer. We were told by the Government that no more than 10 members would
“ensure that the board remains focused and provides clear advice to the commissioner.”
What is the Government’s evidence that 11 or 12 members, for example, would lead to an advisory board that is unfocused and provides confusing advice to the commissioner? No evidence at all was provided.
The Government then told us that a maximum membership of 10 was
“appropriate to ensure that the board can operate effectively and efficiently.”
Once again, not one piece of evidence was advanced as to why 11 or 12 would result in an advisory board that did not operate effectively or efficiently.
Unless it is a government desire to control as much as possible from the centre, what is the reason for the Government pulling the purely arbitrary figure of a maximum of 10 out of the hat, with the consequence that the limit on the size of the domestic abuse commissioner’s advisory board is a fixed, rigid and permanent number, laid down in law with not even an iota of flexibility?
Later on in their response, the Government said that they could
“leave it to the good judgement of the commissioner to appoint suitably qualified individuals”.
So the Government have confidence in the commissioner appointing suitably qualified individuals to her own advisory board, but not the confidence to let the commissioner decide how many such suitably qualified individuals she needs on her advisory board, over and above the minimum of six.
The Government also told us that they needed to
“avoid creating an unwieldy board which cannot then provide effective support to the commissioner.”
So the Government have so little confidence in the domestic abuse commissioner that they think that she, or a successor, would otherwise create an unwieldy advisory board unable to provide them with effective support.
However, the Government’s argument in Committee then did a complete U-turn. Having told us that there must be a rigid and fixed maximum number on the advisory board laid down by law, they then told us that the maximum membership of 10
“does not preclude the commissioner from also seeking advice from other sources”,
that
“the commissioner will be required to establish a victims and survivors advisory group to ensure that it engages directly with victims and survivors in its work”,
and, finally, that the commissioner
“may also establish any other groups as she sees fit.”—[Official Report, 27/1/21; col. 1711.]
So while the Government cannot trust the commissioner not to overdo it on the maximum membership of her own advisory board, they presumably trust the commissioner not to overdo seeking advice from other sources, not to overdo establishing a victims and survivors advisory group, and not to overdo establishing however many other groups she sees fit. The necessity for a fixed, rigid, permanent, statutory, government-determined maximum number, to be imposed on the commissioner for her and her successors’ own advisory board, just does not add up. That is why the Government could give no coherent, credible, evidence-backed explanation in Committee of the need for a statutory maximum, or why that maximum should be 10. The Government really ought to have a rethink on this issue.