Offender Management Bill

moved Amendment No. 41: 41: Clause 3, page 3, line 35, at end insert— ““(d) to implement the general race equality duty under section 71(1) of the Race Relations Act 1976 (c. 74), through— (i) collecting and analysing relevant evidence, (ii) involving affected persons and organisations, (iii) taking actions through an equality action plan, and (iv) publicly reporting each year on their performance on race equality.”” The noble Baroness said: The purpose of Amendment No. 41 is to ensure that all those who provide probation services under this Bill are subject to the race equality duty, which has applied hitherto to probation boards. I am grateful to the Minister for tabling her amendment to Schedule 3, which I recognise may fully meet my concerns. The only reason why I have left my original amendment on the record is so that I can detail the concerns expressed to me by the Commission for Racial Equality and give the Minister the opportunity to explain how and why her amendment would address them. I should make it clear to noble Lords at this point that, as they will see in today’s Marshalled List, I have withdrawn several amendments. I did so to enable the Minister to lead on amendments where she has made concessions and where I felt that it was clear that everything that I had asked for had been met. Here, because I had been asked to table this amendment by the Commission for Racial Equality, I thought that, in due respect to it, I should ask the questions that it wished to have put. I ask the Minister to address the general point made by the CRE that all organisations and persons, not just trusts, will be subject to the race equality duty, as in the amendment. The specific points raised by the amendment should be addressed. Will the government amendment require the providers of probation services and the trusts to do the following: first, collect and analyse relevant evidence; secondly, involve affected persons and organisations; thirdly, take actions though an equality action plan; and, finally, publicly report each year on their performance on race equality? If the noble Baroness can assure the Committee that the government amendment achieves that, will she explain how it will? The CRE believes that the amendment is important because, without such a measure, there could be a race equality gap. It says that, "““the Bill in its present state will place no direct race equality obligations on the new probation trusts … This would constitute a regression in practice from the current position of race equality duties applying to local probation boards””." Rightly, the CRE states that probation trusts matter for race equality because, "““the work of the new trusts is anything but trivial. In fact and in practice they will have major impacts on the life chances of those they serve””." It is also concerned about the quality of pre-sentence reports. In its view, in the Probation Service, there has been a long-standing issue with the quality of pre-sentence reports for ethnic minority offenders. It points out: "““HM Inspectorate of Probation’s thematic inspection of race equality in 2000 concluded that the proportion of reports considered satisfactory or better was considerably higher for white persons than for African/African-Caribbean offenders in some areas””." Finally, it states that it hopes that its amendment is a, "““Light-Touch, Proportionate but Effective Amendment””—" that sounds rather like government language. It states: "““The proposed clause is designed to be light-touch but effective, there to help the new trusts””—" and all other providers— "““to take the essential steps towards good race equality practice””." Before I beg to move my amendment, I note the other amendments grouped with it. I note the amendment in the names of the noble Baronesses, Lady Gibson of Market Rasen and Lady Turner of Camden. I look forward to hearing them put their case because I anticipate that I will be able to support them. I beg to move.