House of Commons Hansard Debates for 21 May 1993

Mr. Lloyd : Before I leave that point and allow the hon. Lady to intervene, let me stress, as I did earlier, that I appreciate the strength of feeling that there is on this subject, not merely among the ethnic minorities, but across the community generally. I am bearing that point very

Column 549

much in mind as we complete our review of the Commission for Racial Equality recommendations on how the Race Relations Act 1976 can be updated.

I want to put on record for the hon. Lady, as she specifically raised the point, my doubts about whether the present law can be used in the way that she wants, and also my doubts about whether it would be right, helpful or acceptable to the House to devise a law to shut down this establishment which might lead to side-effects that neither she nor the rest of the House would wish. This is a difficult subject and it is not my final word upon it. Nevertheless, I place on record those important reservations so that she and the House know about them,

Ms Abbott : Does the Minister accept that for black and Jewish people, the BNP and other fascist organisations are terrorist organisations, both in name and in fact? Does he further accept that for local people, both black and white, Bexley council's reluctance to use the powers available to it is utterly shameful? How many more young black people have to die before the council acts? It would be preferable for the council to incur some inconvenience in the courts than for other young people to lose their lives because of the activities of fascists in south- east London.

Mr. Lloyd : I accept that the hon. Lady speaks sincerely and on behalf of many people, especially those in the ethnic

minorities--although her views stretch across all the communities. However, I cannot accept that Bexley council believes that it has powers, but is unwilling to use them. I believe that the council sincerely believes that, in this case, it does not have the powers to enable it effectively to shut the offices. If the matter were taken to court and lost, the result would be helpful to the BNP, but no one else.

Nor can I accept that the role of the BNP, however unpleasant its views and however strident some of its comments, can be compared with a terrorist movement like the IRA. If it could, there would be no problem--it would be proscribed. It is different, even though its role and activities are deeply unpleasant and unattractive. That is why it cannot be proscribed under current law. We are a country of laws, not one in which Ministers, on the basis of their own feelings or on the strength of public opinion, can ban organisations or remove them from an area. Our laws are occasionally a frustration, but they are a protection for all of us, whatever the community to which we belong. The hon. Member for Woolwich referred specifically to one of the CRE's recommendations for a separate crime of racial assault. To summarise the hon. Gentleman's remarks, he said that implementation of that recommendation would mark out society's particular condemnation of racially motivated violence and reassure the ethnic minority communities. Against that, it must be emphasised that a violent attack is a crime, whoever commits it and against whomever it is committed. It must be seen as such, because that is what it is. I am not convinced that if the additional requirement of demonstrating that the motive were racial were added to the law, that would be beneficial. It would be that much harder to secure a conviction, because another item would have to be proved. Even if it could be, I am not convinced that, on balance, racial harmony would be helped if white

Column 550

victims of white violence could complain that the criminal would have been given a longer sentence had he, the victim, been black. Nor would it be helpful in cases where the attacker was black and the victim from another racial group, to have the inevitable press inquiry of why the attacker was not charged with a racially motivated crime. I am outlining the reservations to those proposals because I take the proposals seriously, as I do all those made by the CRE. That is why it is taking some time for the Home Secretary and I to make our response.

I know of the feeling in the ethnic minority communities and we should like to devise a law to give those communities the maximum protection, but some of the suggestions would not necessarily work as predicted or lead to greater harmony. There is a law under which it is possible to take into account all the relevant circumstances of a crime, which includes the motivation of the attacker if he was racially motivated. That may be reflected in the sentence--indeed, in sentencing, the courts should take all relevant circumstances into account. I am not sure whether it would be helpful to go beyond that.

The hon. Members for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington and for Woolwich stressed the point, so I am acutely aware of the fact that the day-to-day reality of racial harassment lies in the repeated threats, minor assaults and persecution suffered by members of minority communities. The Metropolitan police records suggest that only a small proportion of incidents reported to them involve serious assault. That is one of the reasons why section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986 created a new low-level offence of offensive conduct, which extended criminal liability to behaviour that had hitherto not been criminal.

The White Paper on the review of public order law specifically identified members of the ethnic minority communities as those who should be protected from such behaviour. Section 5 does not require a complaint from a victim and is especially useful when a victim is not willing to come to the police or when a particular victim is difficult to identify. The law has been extended so that it covers the type of assaults, harassment and persecution to which ethnic minority communities are peculiarly subject. The police are very alive to their use of it, but, as this country is a country of laws, there must be sufficient evidence to prosecute if someone is to be punished by the courts for breaking the rules.

I am grateful to the hon. Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington for raising this issue. It is grave because it deeply affects the lives of many people in the ethnic minorities and, as in the recent case of Stephen Lawrence, can encompass the death of an innocent human being. The Government are considering where the effectiveness of the law could be improved. I believe that its reach is fairly comprehensive and the major difficulty in securing convictions is gathering the evidence. The police are placing an increasingly high priority on that under the supervision of the inspectorate, but they rely on the co-operation of all parts of the community. I am impressed and encouraged by the co-operation that they now receive, but much more remains to be done.

On that note, I am sure that the fact that the hon. Lady has brought this issue before the House so starkly today will give a further stimulus to that co-operation so that the scourge of racial assaults and attacks may diminish and eventually be eliminated. For that to happen, we need not only effective policing and a comprehensive law but good

Column 551

relations between the communities, which are hard to create where they do not already exist. However, as the hon. Lady said, enormous progress has been made in this country. Many predictions were made years ago, but I am happy that we are now discussing the issue without their having come true. However, I echo what the hon. Lady said : for several families in south-east London, most notably that of Stephen Lawrence in the past few weeks, such predictions have regrettably come all too true.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at six minutes to Three o'clock.

Written Answers Section

Home Page