moved Amendment No. 139A:
After Clause 27, insert the following new clause-
““RACE EQUALITY DUTY
The Chief Inspector shall ensure that inspections and all other functions are carried out with regard to race equality and in particular the general statutory duty under section 71 of the Race Relations Act 1976 (c. 74) (specified authorities: general statutory duty).””
The noble Baroness said: I wish to speak to Amendments Nos. 139A and 142A, standing in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Dholakia.
These amendments concern the new inspectorate’s—should it come into being—inspection of race equality. Amendment No. 139A would insert a new clause on a race equality duty. The amendment states: "““The Chief Inspector shall ensure that inspections and all other functions are carried out with regard to race equality and in particular the general statutory duty under section 71 of the Race Relations Act 1976 (c. 74) (specified authorities: general statutory duty)””."
Amendment No. 142A states: "““Report by the Secretary of State on race equality""The Secretary of State shall lay before Parliament an annual report on the progress of inspection and regulation bodies in respect of race equality and in particular the general statutory duty under section 71 of the Race Relations Act 1976 (c. 74) (specified authorities: general statutory duty)””."
I am grateful for the advice that we have received on the amendments from the Commission for Racial Equality.
Part 4 gives the new chief inspector a general duty to inspect the courts system, the criminal justice system and the immigration enforcement system as well as a specific duty to inspect prisons, including the treatment and conditions of prisoners, as we have heard very clearly this afternoon. This part of the Bill also contains powers to confer additional functions on the chief inspector, as well as making provision for inspection powers and reports by him.
Although the present five criminal justice inspectorates are subject to the general and specific duties, they have different interpretations of what this means in practice for inspections. The interim report of the Commission for Racial Equality’s investigation in June 2004 had considered a sample of 15 police race equality schemes and had assessed 14 of them as non-compliant. In the light of this, in the autumn of 2004, Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary accepted that its duty to promote race equality included action to address such shortcomings within the police service. It is developing an electronic tool for forces to assess their own progress on delivering the duty.
The other inspectorates, however, have not had this experience and interpret the duty differently. Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Probation—HMIP—has conducted very effective thematic inspections on race equality, but not with an emphasis on the duty. In individual inspections it assesses outcomes such as the management of and training in diversity, and has recently agreed to give greater emphasis to equality and diversity in its reports. It interprets ““inspection of the duty”” as assessing how well the diverse needs of offenders and staff are met, but not, for example, whether the specific statutory duties regarding the ethnic monitoring of training, or the race impact assessment of proposed policies, are actually fulfilled. Where figures, for example on access to staff training by race, do not appear in an inspection report, it is impossible to know whether this is because such figures are not kept or the inspectorate did not choose to consider this in its assessment of diversity.
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, "““ensuring that promoting equality and diversity is at the heart of public services””."
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.
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.
Police and Justice Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Baroness Harris of Richmond
(Liberal Democrat)
in the House of Lords on Thursday, 6 July 2006.
It occurred during Committee of the Whole House (HL)
and
Debate on bills on Police and Justice Bill.
Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
684 c463-5 
Session
2005-06
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
Subjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2024-02-02 10:09:29 +0000
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_335555
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_335555
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_335555