Relevant documents: 7th Report from the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, 1st Report from the Constitution Committee

Debate on Amendment 30 resumed.

My Lords, I add my support to Amendments 30, 31, 37 to 46, and 53. Compliance with the victims’ code goes straight to the heart of what the Bill is about. This year, the code will have been on the statute book for 20 years. Its creation was based on good intentions, and the many entitlements, if properly implemented, would deliver the support and treatment deserved. On that we all agreed.

As discussed in the previous debate, the same piece of legislation sought to underpin the code by setting up the role of an independent Victims’ Commissioner, whose role is to

“review the operation of the code”.

Twenty years later, I think we all agree that the expectations created by that piece of legislation have never been fully met. Victim Support has found that as many as six in 10 victims do not receive their rights under the victims’ code, two in 10 are not referred to support services, and six in 10 are not referred to a needs assessment. In my most recent victim survey, fewer than three in 10 respondents were aware of the existence of the code. Only 29% recalled being told about the entitlement to make a victim personal statement.

In December, we had the report of the joint inspection on how well the police, the CPS and probation supported victims, which also found that the focus on complying with rights under the victims’ code has led to an emphasis on process rather than quality of service. The police, the CPS and the Probation Service did not always consider the needs of victims. As for police sharing information with victims, the report found that this was often a box-ticking exercise, with no evidence of quality. We love tick boxes, but we are missing the whole point of issuing this information and supporting victims. As the recent case in Nottingham has shown so powerfully, the quality and timeliness of communications with victims are crucial.

After 20 years, it is disappointing that we need to have this debate yet again. During that time, there have been many well-intentioned attempts to drive up performance: a tweak here, a nudge there, and yet another revision of the code. This Bill must not be allowed to become another nudge and another tweak.

There is much in the Bill to commend it. It will set up a structure whereby data is collected locally, with the Secretary of State issuing guidance on the data required. There will be an internal process to oversee monitoring of compliance, a programme board, and a ministerial task force. If an agency fails to deliver, it will eventually be issued with a notice of non-compliance. These are all positive developments.

Yes, I do have some concerns—for example, about whether the police and crime commissioners will be resourced to undertake the required data collection and analysis, and about the influence they will be able to assert over national criminal justice agencies at a local level—but let us not focus on those for now. The question we must ask ourselves is: will regional directors of, say, the CPS or the Probation Service lie awake at night worrying about an MoJ notice? I very much doubt it. Where are the transparency, the public accountability, the independent scrutiny and the challenge? By itself, will this worthy framework deliver the culture change we have all been talking about?

As the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, said last week—I know we have had a weekend in between—we might ask: does it have teeth? I fear that it does not. I support the amendments in this group not because I want to undermine or devalue the work that has been done in government, but because I want to give the Government the tools to make it succeed.

Amendment 30 sets out a framework for the Government to hold the criminal justice agencies to account should they fail to deliver a minimum level of compliance with victims’ rights. This proposal is not a straitjacket; it is a framework. The Government set the threshold, and the timeframe is two successive years. A failure to meet the Government’s set thresholds will result in an inspection, which in turn will result in a published report highlighting shortcomings and making recommendations for the change. This holds agencies fully to account and provides much-needed transparency. To put it bluntly, it has much more clout than an MoJ non-compliance notification.

For the same reason, I support Amendment 31, which gives holders of my role the opportunity to issue non-compliance notices where there is evidence of persistent non- compliance.

I turn to Amendments 44 to 46, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool. The systematic collection of compliance data offers an opportunity for proper scrutiny and accountability. The publication of the data will be a significant development, but the Government propose to give themselves the responsibility for delivering the assessment of the data. Therefore, they decide on the data to be collected. They fund the PCCs, victim activity and data collection. They also publish their own internal assessment of the data. As the noble Lord, Lord Russell, says, this smacks of the Government marking their own homework.

This framework lacks independent scrutiny and challenge. We can do better than this. This assessment needs to be undertaken by the person who has statutory responsibility for reviewing the operation of the code—in other words, the Victims’ Commissioner: someone who has the freedom to report without fear or favour, and who is able to challenge both the Government and the criminal justice agencies. As a person independent of government, his or her findings would be viewed as credible by victims, the public and the media. I add that my term expires in October, so this responsibility would fall to the future commissioners.

A former CEO of the office of a police and crime commissioner watched the debate last Wednesday, and she emailed me to say that the concerns from speakers about the approach of the criminal justice agencies to the code resonated with her. She said:

“On the additional ‘A’ being added by Lord Bellamy of ‘adaptable’, I understand the point he was making, but I would suggest the agencies sat around the Local Criminal Justice table have made full use of the adaptable nature of the code to date and the lack of governance around it which is why we are in the position we find ourselves with only a third of victims having awareness of the code”.

This needs to change. From the outset, I have constantly said that the credibility of the Bill rests on delivering code compliance and ending the culture within our agencies of adapting themselves around it. This is something on which we are all agreed, and I hope the Minister and the Government will, at long last, listen and act upon our concerns.

My Lords, I have added my name to Amendments 30 and 44 to 46 in this group, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool. Others have spoken at length and much better than I can about these, so I really just want to echo the noble Baroness, Lady Newlove, here. These amendments are about compliance, accountability and the Victims’ Commissioner. The noble Baroness, Lady Newlove, talked about tweaks and nudges, which we do not want—just give the Victims’ Commissioner teeth, because independence and rigorous scrutiny are vital if the Bill is to have the confidence of victims.

My Lords, I have signed Amendments 31, 51 and 83 in this group. Amendment 31 would give the Victims’ Commissioner an additional role in ensuring the victims’ code in the event of non-compliance. As other noble Lords have said today and last Wednesday, the real problem with the Bill is that there is no duty on agencies to comply. I support the two previous speakers—nudging agencies will not create the right effect.

Amendment 51, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, would ensure that the justice agencies are properly trained. As with Amendment 83, the aims and objectives of Amendment 51 are something I have laid repeatedly over the decade and more since I have been pushing for training, particularly on matters to do with victims. I am really pleased that the noble Lord has tabled the amendment; I am also pleased that the family courts are beginning to understand that there is a crossover between what happens to victims in the criminal justice system and their experiences in the family court system. I will not say more, because we will be debating a group of amendments on that on Wednesday. However, none of that will happen unless everybody involved in the criminal justice procedure is fully trained. I understand that the justices are extremely concerned that Parliament should ask them to be trained, but it is not just about people sitting on the Bench. This is about everybody who is engaged.

I know that I have said in private and perhaps in public that, when I went to the sentencing of my stalker, I was placed literally next to him. I had no choice of where to sit—that is where the clerk who took me in sat me. It was the first time I had seen him since he was arrested, and it was a real shock to the system. So, when I talk about right through the system, I mean absolutely everything, including the people who help manage the seating areas in the court. Above all, we need a system whereby the family courts will ensure that victims are not victimised twice. It is broader than that, and I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, for tabling that amendment.

Amendment 83 would ensure that front-line agencies are trained to recognise stalking. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Russell, for expanding it to include higher education places. Stalking in its most unpleasant form is manipulative and coercive. Families and friends of those being stalked are also stalked, meaning that people who come into contact with them, including in schools, colleges, universities and the health system, need to understand when they are being played by a stalker. Because stalkers are very good at it—every single day cases come to court with stalkers behaving in this appalling manipulative way. It is extremely unpleasant and frightening. To train everyone to recognise it, to be able to ask the right questions and, as we discussed last week, to signpost people to the right services, is vital.

There is another reason why Amendment 83 is important. One problem of the Domestic Abuse Act is that it has downgraded non-domestic stalking. The priority in the system is for domestic stalking, and without a specific amendment providing for stalking in one form, we will not see this form of discrimination, which happens simply because it is not domestic—and I am afraid that some people in the criminal justice system think that non-domestic stalking is not as severe.

Overall, from these Benches we welcome the amendments. The deluge of amendments that the Minister is facing is because we know that the victims’ code that the Government have put forward, with which we all agree in principle, will not work without the strengthening of the responsibilities of the Victims’ Commissioner and other agencies involved in managing the lives that victims have after they have become victims.

My Lords, I support in broad terms the need for the commissioner to have more powers to intervene on behalf of victims, and my questions are about how that should be done most effectively to create the atmosphere that is needed.

For many years we have had people who have intervened on behalf of suspects, but very few people who have been able to intervene on behalf of victims, and I really support that changing. Amendment 30 talks about the ability to produce reports. My questions are about whether the reports are the right way to achieve the outcome, when people in fact want individual interventions for their particular problem. To give more powers to the commissioner to intervene in individual problems might be more powerful.

First, the Government ought to be clear, if they are to follow Amendment 30, what the inspection burden will be, which is growing for many public services. Police, prisons and probation have multiple inspectors carrying out multiple inspections together and sometimes they have not agreed their priorities. This causes time and money to be spent on their recommendations. It would be helpful if they were sometimes able to agree those recommendations before they published them. I am afraid that does not always happen. Adding more reports and inspections has to be thought through before it happens and not afterwards, because the compound effect of these inspections is not always helpful. The irony is that sometimes inspections have not prevented any of the things they were worried about. Usually, reports are retrospective about something that has happened, and do not stop something that should not have happened.

My second point on this amendment is something we need to be clear about. Is the idea that, if there is a simple breach of the code—for example, in one person’s case—then subsection (2) of this proposed new Clause will kick in? Or will there have to be a general failure across a number of cases? I am not quite clear what standard must be achieved before the inspection and report have to kick in. A simple failure in one case would not be sufficient but, of course, multiple failures over a sustained period would. A strategic failure of course might engage this type of inspection and report. So I ask for more clarity about when it will kick in and what standard will need to be breached.

My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 36, which is in my noble friend Lord Bach’s name, as well as my own. This is a probing amendment. It does not set out to challenge the Government’s position on delivering their commitment regarding local criminal justice boards, within the scope of the clauses on code compliance. It seeks to set out the benefits of putting LCJBs and police and crime commissioners together.

First, it will drive consistency of approach to code compliance, which can be monitored through LCJBs. Secondly, it will deliver effective collaboration and shared accountability of code compliance and encourage attendance from criminal justice boards. Thirdly, it will ensure that statutory guidance is reflective of the LCJB approach. Fourthly, it will recognise the LCJB role in victims’ code compliance, given the policy intent to place the boards on a statutory footing.

This amendment does not state that LCJBs are the only forum in which to comply with the current regulations. However, LCJBs are important forums that need to be bolstered in order to deliver on the Bill’s ambitions, drive consistency and ensure local shared accountability for code compliance across criminal justice bodies and the elected policing bodies. This amendment will deliver that aim through enshrining them in this Bill.

The Ministry of Justice published guidance for LCJBs in March 2023. This guidance reiterated the commitment to placing LCJBs on a statutory footing:

“In line with recommendations made by the Review, a suitable legislative vehicle is being sought to place LCJBs on a statutory footing and mandate that the PCC act as Chair”.

By giving local criminal justice boards their own place in the legislation, this amendment would remind local partners of their shared accountability for and commitment to supporting victims of crime and to delivering the new responsibilities set out in this Bill. We would also provide PCCs, who chair the Majority of these boards, with the levers they need to ensure that the boards are effective and set clear expectations of their members.

Turning to the other amendments in this group, the noble Baroness, Lady Newlove, spoke to Amendments 30 and 31, and I agree, of course, with the points she made. She spoke very powerfully on the importance of independent scrutiny and transparency, and she proposed a “framework, not a straitjacket”. She believes, as do I, that what she is proposing is a better way of holding agencies to account. She also quoted the noble Lord, Lord Russell, on the Government currently marking their own homework; he wants to deliver a better system through these amendments.

I also want to endorse what the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, said about recognising both domestically related and non-domestically related stalking. I have dealt with stalking matters quite a few times in magistrates’ courts, and even though, from an outsider’s point of view, they can seem less important, I am absolutely convinced that, for the people being stalked, it is an extremely alarming and frightening position to find themselves in. In fact, I dealt with that sort of case very recently. It also reinforces the point in Amendment 51 about the training needed for justice agencies in order to recognise stalking and its importance.

In conclusion, I noted with interest the questions of the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, to the noble Lord, Lord Russell, and the noble Baroness, Lady Newlove, about multiple inspectors and inspections and the need for this to be carefully thought through. They were very fair questions, but I do not think they add up to an argument against. Their points were well made, and I look forward to hearing the Minister’s answer.

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.

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.

Perhaps the Minister can drink a bit more water at this point, though that is not the sole reason for my Intervention.

I am grateful for the Minister’s clarification, but my own clarification is that no one suggested, at any point, that Clause 5 is an ouster of judicial review. Last time, I was trying to make it clear that, in Clause 5, the code does not give any right to civil proceedings, and so no individual can sue on the code. In the creative scheme that we devised, we were not suggesting that individuals should be able to sue either. We certainly agree with not wanting more litigation for people who have already had a terrible time with litigation and probably have no civil legal aid anyway.

The point was that the Victims’ Commissioner should be more than a toothless tiger. Whether or not it is through force of personality, as with the current commissioner, future commissioners should have something in their back pocket for recalcitrant public authorities which, year after year, do not respect the victims’ code. Even in the scheme that we developed, litigation should not be the first resort for a Victims’ Commissioner either today or in future. They should have to jump through hoops first—the issue of private notices followed up by the issue of public notices. Only in extremis should the Victims’ Commissioner alone—in relation not even to particular a criminal case but to systemic failure—be able, as a last resort, to sue on the code. I understand the Minister’s position, but I hope he will at least take the opportunity to reflect on what noble Lords have suggested before the next stage.

I thank the noble Baroness for that Intervention. I will continue to reflect on all the points made, including this one. The Government’s present position is that this “slap on the wrist” power for the Victims’ Commissioner probably does not take matters much further forward, but I may reflect on that further.

I turn to Amendments 37 to 42 from the noble Lord, Lord Russell, and other related amendments, which, as I understand it, require the Secretary of State, rather than the police and crime commissioner, to monitor code compliance for a local police area. For transparency, the Government are committed to national oversight via the ministerial task force, but there is an essential role for local accountability. There is a hierarchy here, and the police and crime commissioner is the right person to be responsible for ensuring compliance in that local area as they already play a vital role in improving and championing services for victims through commissioning support services and chairing local criminal justice courts. The Government attach importance to that local activity.

This brings me to Amendment 36, supported by the noble Lords, Lord Ponsonby and Lord Bach, which seeks to specify that criminal justice boards and PCCs may use local criminal justice boards for the purposes of local review. We entirely agree. As the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, said—I completely recognise this—we need a wider debate about placing local criminal justice boards on a statutory footing. The Government have expressed support for that happening in a way that reflects the full remit of the work they do. Once we find a legislative opportunity to do so, it should be taken forward. The Government are very much of the view that their often vital work should be supported.

I return to awareness and training in Amendment 51 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, and Amendment 83 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Russell, on training in support for victims of stalking. The noble Lords are quite right that there is an obvious need for more training. The Government hesitate to have a national training framework because so much will depend on the local situation. These amendments apply to a vast range of organisations and a one-size-fits-all approach will not appropriately support staff to meet the diverse needs of victims in the wide range of settings in which they operate.

However, it is very difficult to imagine guidance on Clause 11 which does not include a reference to the kind of training that should be done. If you are placing a duty on the agencies to work with victims day in, day out to promote awareness of the code, it seems implicit that the relevant persons have to be properly trained. The Government agree with that.

On the specific issue of stalking, which we may come back to later in other areas of the Bill, the Government recognise that this is a complex offence and are committed to supporting the victims. We are carefully considering the Suzy Lamplugh Trust’s report, alongside the coroner’s recommendations following the inquest into the tragic death of Gracie Spinks, which found failings in the police’s understanding of stalking. We are looking closely at this important issue to understand where government intervention could improve the response. That is important again in terms of statutory guidance; in the Bill under Clause 11, for example, I would have thought it is an issue we need to address.

I hope this gives your Lordships at least some reassurance that we are committed to ensuring that there is a framework in place to achieve clear awareness, accountability, accessibility and affordability, and appropriate training. I therefore urge the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.

My Lords, first, I pay tribute to the Minister, who for 25 minutes has responded to this group when he quite clearly would rather be in Another place; I do not mean down the Corridor. We all wish him a speedy recovery, but we would also be well advised to keep a fairly safe distance from him for the immediate future.

The Minister said at the beginning that the key to making the victims part of the Bill work is culture change. To mix metaphors, there was culture change with teeth—which sounds like a strange creature for well-paid Harley Street specialists to dream up new procedures for.

Before I continue with that, it would be nice if we could try to stop in its tracks the growing confusion which has come since the arrival in your Lordships’ House of a brace of Russells. I point out that I am a lowly Baron—the bottom of the heap, Lord Russell of Liverpool—and not the much more elevated noble Earl, Lord Russell, who is in his place. To back up my point, I will quote the letter that the noble Earl’s grandfather and my grandfather wrote jointly to the Times in 1959, which I think makes the point rather clear:

“Sir—In order to discourage confusions which have been constantly occurring, we beg herewith to state that neither of us is the other”.

I hope that puts that particular care to rest.

When talking about what the Government are proposing in the victims part of the Bill, the Minister asked the rhetorical question of whether it is a credible structure. Do we need, as the Government are saying, a strengthening and reinforcing of the current structure or—and this is not rhetorical—is the structure itself part of the problem? The structure has been in place in a slightly weakened form for many years and it is clearly not working. The Government have recognised that, and put a commitment in the 2019 manifesto to try to put that right and produce a victims Bill.

In reflecting on how best to respond to the manifest failings in the current structure—although there are some good points—I suggest to the Government that the best solution is not to try to reinforce the current structure by putting sticking plasters and various forms of glue into various parts of it.

I also point out that, while best practice certainly exists—we know it is exists; there are examples all over the country—we also know a great deal about human nature. Human nature is perhaps best exemplified by something known to anybody now in your Lordships’ Chamber who was once a Minister—a political Minister, not of the Church—in any shape or form: hell hath no fury like different government departments trying to ignore one another, and, above all, like a department doing everything it can desperately to avoid taking on any good practice from another department, which might be seen to imply that its own practice was not as good. We have all known about that; “Yes Minister” was a very successful programme for many years, partly on that premise. That is human nature; it is the same with departments of state, police and crime commissioners and the 43 separate police forces in England and Wales—all the different bodies dealing with this.

I come back to what I mentioned last week: the paean for a past age identified by the noble Lord, Lord Hennessy, when you could essentially rely on people and parts of the state doing what is expected of them—the “good chaps” theory of government and administration, if you like. There is so much evidence to indicate that, for all sorts of reasons that we will not go into today, that is not happening. We would be doing ourselves, and in particular the Government, a favour if we looked in the mirror and recognised that it is not working.

The Victims’ Commissioner has to be the most obvious channel for dealing with an awful lot of these issues. In particular, the current interim commissioner, who was largely responsible for the role being created in the first place, has direct experience of being a victim at great cost and has, for the last 15 years or more, dedicated her life to helping other victims and to talking to a variety of individuals and organisations to work out how better to understand what victims are going through and to do something to help them. She knows what she is taking about—she really does. When she talks to the Government and suggests, in her usual very polite way, that things are not quite as they may seem and that things may not turn out quite as the Government hope they will, it behoves the entire House to listen to her very carefully.

An unfortunate fact in recent history is that because the noble Baroness’s predecessor as Victims’ Commissioner was not invited to return for a second term of office, there was a significant period when there was no Victims’ Commissioner and no proper voice for victims. That took place at a critical time when the Bill was going through its birth pangs and was being put together. It would be good for the Government to acknowledge the insights and information that the noble Baroness could have given to the inception, crafting and architecture of the Bill—particularly its structure, which we will come back to. The Bill would have been infinitely improved if it had had the benefit of more input from her and the team around her. It is never too late, and I hope that we can use the time between now and Report to have some intensive meetings and discussions in a completely non-combative way. I and others said at the beginning of the Bill that our role is to drain any politics from the Bill to the extent that we can. It is not about politics; it is about people and victims. The Victims’ Commissioner is the obvious driver of culture change; she is better placed to do that than anybody else, and it behoves the Government to acknowledge that and to listen to her.

As for the minimum threshold, I hear what the Minister said about having a range of indicators rather than minimum thresholds. The sceptic in me would point out that if you are asking a range of institutions—which are themselves being asked to work out whether they are meeting those thresholds—to come up with their own preferred indicators, you may possibly not come up with some of the more challenging and awkward indicators. You may well come up with a preferred list of indicators that are rather more easy to accede to. Philosophically, there is at least a question mark over that approach, and we would like to discuss that further.

I say a big thank you to the Government for acknowledging that an annual statement of the state of affairs is very welcome. I think I can see the noble Baroness nodding. We are grateful for that and regard it as a good step forward.

To come back to the role of the Victims’ Commissioner, whoever is in this role should be front and centre in making the Bill as effective as possible, and then being accountable for holding the Government and the different agencies to account for delivering on it. It is not a satisfactory course to expect the Government to hold themselves to account. In theory, the Government have held themselves to account in this area for the last 20 years, and the report card is perhaps not as stellar as the Government would like it to be. I am grateful that the joint criminal boards are acknowledged as an important part of the process; that is a good move.

As far as training is concerned, I am grateful in particular that the Government are looking at the super-complaint that the Suzy Lamplugh Trust put forward on the basis of some dreadful stories. Stalking is incredibly complex. We need to sit down and try to make sure that people understand just how large scale, complex and insidious it is. To expect any public servant—or even victim—to understand what they are dealing with without effective, precise training will not give a good result, as I learned from talking to Richard Spinks, the father of Gracie Spinks, two weeks ago. He was not bitter, but he was desperately disappointed that Gracie had complained to the Derbyshire police more than 40 times about the way she was being threatened and the concerns she had about what might happen—and it did happen. It happened in plain sight, and the Derbyshire police in effect chose to be blindfolded and mute. To their credit, they have acknowledged after the event that they failed egregiously. What was needed was proper training in place, a proper understanding of dealing with this and, above all, proper leadership. If you want real culture change, you need really good leadership. I put it to noble Lords that having the leadership of a really effective Victims’ Commissioner is probably the most effective way to drive this forward.

We all welcome the Minister’s invitation to have further meetings to, as he put it so elegantly, reflect further—hopefully when his sinuses permit. On that basis, I withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment 30 withdrawn.

Clause 5: Effect of non-compliance

Amendment 31 not moved.

Clause 5 agreed.

Clause 6: Code awareness and reviewing compliance: criminal justice bodies

Amendments 32 to 34 not moved.