My Lords, I thank noble Lords very much for their contributions to this group. I first apologise for my heavy cold and thank my noble friends Lord Roborough and Lord Howe for stepping into the breach and dealing with subsequent groups today.
The amendments in this group essentially seek stronger compliance mechanisms, credibility, as has been said, more specific obligations on training and a wider role for the Victims’ Commissioner—in other words, we are in the field of awareness and accountability, to use two of my four “A’s”. The Government would not be proceeding with this structure if they did not believe that they were delivering a credible structure. The whole purpose of Clauses 6 to 10, combined with guidance under Clause 11, is very much to improve awareness and compliance. Under Clause 6, criminal justice bodies must promote awareness and review their compliance, and, in particular, under Clause 7 the PCCs for each area must supervise the criminal justice bodies in their area and provide reports for the Secretary of State. That is all combined with the collection and sharing of information about how they are functioning, together with the publication of compliance information under Clause 10.
In that latter regard, I ask noble Lords not to underestimate the importance and strength of shining light in dark corners. We have seen it in other parts of the criminal justice system, such as the family justice system. Once you have the information and it is in the public domain, that is a huge contributor to raising standards generally. As the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool, pointed out, some police forces are
doing extremely well; I think Cheshire was the example he gave. So it can be done under the existing system. The question is, how we bring everybody up to the same standard. Clauses 6 to 10, coupled with the duty to collaborate under Clause 12, and the preparation of the strategy and the needs assessment under Clause 13, all involve everybody collaborating, working together, learning from each other and generally arriving at best practice. In the Government’s view, that is a perfectly sensible and entirely efficient and fruitful way to go. So in general terms, at least at this stage, the Government are not persuaded of the need for the further amendments in this group.
I turn for a moment to the rights of individual victims under the statutory code. Without reopening exchanges from the previous occasion, I would like to state categorically on behalf of the Government, at the Dispatch Box, that Clause 5 is not and is not intended to be an ouster of judicial review. The code, its operation and the bodies responsible for this operation are, in the Government’s view, subject to judicial review. From the point of view of the individual victim, that may be something of a technicality but, given the modern prevalence of public interest litigation by groups of various kinds, it is not insignificant that the relevant bodies and the code itself are subject to judicial review.
As for the individual victim, the Government agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, that giving victims the right to sue directly in the courts—for example, for damages—is not the best approach. In the case of the individual victim, the route is a complaint to the ombudsman, who may give such redress, including compensation, as it is within their power to give. Noble Lords will note that another improvement in the Bill, in Clause 23, enables the victim complainant to go direct to the ombudsman rather than through one’s MP. That is an important reform.
What are the enforcement mechanisms if this system does not work as envisaged? What are we going to do about it? I shall give noble Lords a little bit of colour from the additional document about compliance oversight, published on the MoJ website last month and referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Newlove. At national level, there will be a new cross-criminal justice system governance system, with a programme board and a ministerial taskforce to monitor compliance nationally. The Victims’ Commissioner will be fully involved; we are putting the Victims’ Commissioner at the heart, administratively speaking, of the way in which this is developing—as will the various inspectorates and other important stakeholders.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Newlove, said, one weapon with which to address non-compliance will be the use of non-statutory non-compliance notifications similar to those used in the Prison Service to drive change. Also very potent, if I may say so, are the inspections themselves. Clauses 19 to 22 give the relevant powers to the inspectors of constabulary and probation and so forth to have inspections. Another aspect that adds to the powers of the Victims’ Commissioner is to build the commissioner into those structures and to require those bodies, when developing inspections, to fully consult the commissioner. There is also the possibility
of joint inspections, which is another tool. So when you need to do something on a targeted basis, in this Bill you have the powers, in the end, to do it. That is the Government’s general position.
I now turn to the specific amendments. Amendment 30, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool, seeks to create a duty on the Secretary of State to set out in regulations minimal thresholds for the code of compliance and to instigate inspections when these are breached in two consecutive years. The Government’s position is that we fully agree that clear indicators are needed to identify severe and persistent non-compliance. However, it is almost certain that what the Government propose to adopt will be a range of indicators, rather than a specific minimum threshold, to consider not just when entitlements are being delivered but how they are received by victims. Those indicators should be decided by the bodies that are responsible for delivering the code, which is why it will be a matter for the ministerial task force. As I have said, the task force will include the inspectorates, the Victims’ Commissioner, and the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman.
4 pm
The development of thresholds, not quite in the statutory form that the noble Lord is proposing but within the framework that will be developed, is certainly envisaged. However, one needs a slightly more flexible and responsive system than Amendment 30 would allow. Certainly, the Government’s view is that it would not be acceptable for whatever indications there are to be breached for two consecutive years—that is rather a long period, in the Government’s view. We are not persuaded that Amendment 30 is, of itself, a necessary or positive addition to the armoury that is already there.
Once again, I draw attention to the ability to implement joint inspections in cases where there has been a failure to operate this system. We can discuss this further, but I hope I have managed to convince your Lordships that the Government’s approach is workable and will drive real accountability.
Amendment 50, again proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Russell, seeks to require the Secretary of State to provide an annual statement on compliance. I am pleased to commit the Government to publish an annual report on compliance. Details can be worked out, but there is no doubt in my mind that that is something that will be available for debate in Parliament. It will be a published annual report and it will include information on severe and persistent non-compliance. This is another example of the Government’s approach, which is to shine a light on all these areas. I will not mention any counties other than Cheshire, because we know Cheshire is good, but when you see your next-door neighbour is doing much better than you are, there is a very natural pressure to raise your game, and there is quite a lot of reliance by the Government on that aspect. However, the Government have no particular problem with the underlying purpose of the amendment, which is to provide this annual statement on compliance.
Then we get to the role of the Victims’ Commissioner and exactly where it sits in the system. Is it an outside, independent policeman of all this, or is it, as it is at the moment, the ability to make views known, require
reports and so on? It is very important that the Victims’ Commissioner plays a huge role in this whole structure. I accept that, which is why we envisage that the Victims’ Commissioner should be in the ministerial task force and fully engaged with the task force, the inspectorates and other stakeholders to drive forward the success of the Bill. Knowing as I do the present Victims’ Commissioner, I have no doubt at all that, through sheer force of personality, that will naturally happen, if I may say so.
There are three important things about the Victims’ Commissioner in this Bill that we should not lose sight of. First, Clause 18 enables the Victims’ Commissioner to address reports to relevant agencies and requires them to respond to the recommendations within 56 days—that is a new power. Secondly, the other new power is the ability of the Victims’ Commissioner to be involved in the construction and framework for the inspections that will become necessary if there is a major failing somewhere in the system. That is provided for in Clauses 19 and 20, where the Victims’ Commissioner is given specific status in relation to the Inspector of Constabulary and other relevant inspectors. Thirdly, the Victims’ Commissioner’s role in the task force, while not exactly enshrined in statute, is enshrined for all practical purposes in day-to-day management. It is entirely unlikely to imagine that this enterprise on which we are jointly engaged could function for a moment if the Victims’ Commissioner was not fully involved.
Against that background, how do we think about Amendment 31, which would allow the Victims’ Commissioner herself, or himself, to issue notices to improve compliance and to publish those notices and in the end take legal proceedings? The need for some sort of enforcement mechanism in this area, relating to the non-statutory, non-compliance notifications that I mentioned earlier, is quite a reasonable suggestion. However, the legislation underpinning the Victims’ Commissioner’s role at the moment precludes them from conducting particular court proceedings, or legal proceedings, and it is not, in the Government’s view, yet clear that this would be a useful innovation.
I pay tribute to the inventiveness—imagination underplays it—of the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, for thinking this up as a possible process. However, the Government are not convinced that it would be a useful process, and it would undoubtedly lead to the diversion of time and resource to legal proceedings. If there is one thing the Government are doing their best to avoid in this area, it is money unnecessarily going on legal proceedings. The Government are not persuaded that Amendment 31 would be an appropriate way to go.