| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
The reports of Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Courts Administration—HMICA—rarely refer to race equality matters other than the existence, or otherwise, of signs in minority languages and interpreting facilities. Its predecessor body, Her Majesty’s Magistrates’ Courts Service Inspectorate, published a helpful thematic inspection report in 2003 on how far the magistrates’ courts committees had met their duty to publish compliant race equality schemes, whereas HMICA has a subject for each round of inspections, so far based on different aspects of the efficient use of resources, which seems to have marginalised race equality considerations.
The Commission for Racial Equality has proposed that inspecting the courts service’s delivery of the duty should be planned for, but is unaware of any steps so far in this direction. Perhaps the Minister will be able to advise us how far that might have gone. Her Majesty’s Crown Prosecution Inspectorate—HMCPI—does not inspect the compliance of the prosecution service with its statutory general and specific duties as such, but it is currently conducting a thematic inspection on race equality, on which it consulted the commission before embarking. It appears likely that it will effectively gauge progress towards race equality in the service and so discharge the inspectorate’s own duty. The CRE is concerned that the merger of the different inspectorates in one body will weaken the attention given to the race equality duty and bring it back to its most common denominator, thereby effectively diminishing its impact in making a substantial change in the criminal justice system.
In addition, the Government’s strategy to increase race equality and community cohesion, Improving Opportunity, Strengthening Society, identifies public service inspectorates as having a crucial role in contributing to service improvements,
The aim over the three years of the strategy is for inspectorates to continue to build on this progress, ensuring that equality and diversity are integral to their work. It goes on to outline how various inspectorates of the criminal justice system will achieve that.To be able to deliver the objectives of the government-wide strategy, there is a need for a clear requirement in the Bill that obliges the new inspectorate to inspect for the delivery of the statutory general and specific duties. The current anomaly of different inspectorates interpreting their duty differently should be succeeded by the adoption by the new inspectorate of current best practice, which in the CRE’s view is that of Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary.
6 July 2006 : Column 465
We believe that the Secretary of State should produce annual reports on the progress of inspection and regulation bodies on race equality. That would be consistent with Article 5 and Schedule 2 of the Disability Discrimination (Public Authorities) (Statutory Duties) Regulations 2005, which provide for 10 Secretaries of State and the National Assembly for Wales to submit every three years a report on the progress made on disability equality in their respective sectors.
To briefly sum up, the various criminal justice inspectorates are currently covered by both the general statutory duty under the Race Relations Act and also by the specific requirement to ensure that those public authorities for which it has responsibility are compliant with all of their statutory duties. Can the Minister give a categorical assurance that the newly created inspectorate, Her Majesty’s Chief Inspector for Justice, Community Safety and Custody, will comply with its responsibilities to inspect and report on race equality and reflect those responsibilities in respect of all other functions? I beg to move.
6.45 pm
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: Perhaps I may say how much I welcome the speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Harris, because she ably and elegantly highlighted the current discrepancies between the disparate inspectorates, particularly in relation to race. Perhaps I may respectfully say that she gave an eloquent exposition as to why we need a joined-up inspectorate: we are now working with the inspectorate on the high-level business strategy for the future inspection regime and a specific strand is dedicated to race and diversity, which is being led by Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabularies, so that the new inspectorate will use the best of existing practice.
The noble Baroness is right: the various criminal justice inspectorates are currently covered by both the general statutory duty under the Race Relations Act and by the specific requirement to ensure that the public authorities that they have responsibility for are compliant with all of their statutory duties. This Government expect the new single inspectorate to comply with its responsibilities to inspect and report on race equality and to reflect those responsibilities in respect of all other functions.
Schedule 11(6) adds the new chief inspector to the list of bodies which are subject to the general statutory duty under the Race Relations Act to have due regard, in carrying out their functions, to the need to eliminate race discrimination and promote race equality and race relations. The first amendment would not add meaningfully to that. Presentationally, it might afford race equality greater emphasis, but that would beg the question as to the place of equally important issues, such as gender and disability equality and human rights. I know that the noble Baroness highlighted that when she said that sometimes we forget. Well, we are not forgetting here. We consider the Race Relations Act sufficient statutory underpinning for this important element of inspectorate business.
To give
practical effect to the duty under the Race Relations Act, we have
included in the programme of
6 July 2006 : Column 466
This work will involve the Commission for Racial Equality and other key stakeholders. We intend that inspecting for race equality and diversity generally, so as to ensure that inspected bodies have in place effective arrangements for the discharge of their obligations, will continue as an integral part of each inspection. We want the new chief inspector to have flexibility in determining how diversity in all its manifestations is to be examined—certainly, as a routine part of assessing performance, and also, perhaps, through occasional dedicated thematic inspections. Nevertheless, if, in future, Ministers consider that this responsibility is not being given sufficient emphasis by the chief inspector, they will be able to use the power of direction contained in Clause 30(3) to direct the chief inspector to have regard to this aspect of Government policy. That is a good example of the potential use that we envisage for this power. I know that it has drawn criticism from some but it might help the noble Baroness and those who later read what I have said to better understand why these provisions may not be quite as stupid or as flawed as some may suggest.
The second of the amendments would place on the Secretary of State a duty to report annually to Parliament on the progress of inspection and regulation bodies in respect of race equality. The Bill already contains, in Clause 32, improved and strengthened provisions for reporting by the chief inspector, through the responsible Ministers, to Parliament. We would expect the chief inspector’s annual report on the discharge of his duties to include reference to the discharge of the duty placed on him or her by the Race Relations Act, and the discharge of that duty will, as I have explained, be a constant factor in inspection activity. Ministers will be required to lay the annual report before Parliament.
I hope that I have reassured the noble Baroness that the amendment, which makes reference to other, unspecified, inspection and regulation bodies, is not necessary. We believe that the appropriate place for reporting requirements relating to other bodies is in the legislation governing those bodies. Therefore, I hope that this is one amendment that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw and that she will not need to come back to it on Report.
6 July 2006 : Column 467
Baroness Harris of Richmond: This is the end of a very long day on the Police and Justice Bill. It is always very nice when the Government come out with helpful remarks that enable me to withdraw an amendment. I am very grateful and I beg leave to withdraw this amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6 July 2006 : Column 468
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
- House adjourned at eight minutes before
seven
o’clock.
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |