Previous SectionIndexHome Page


Madam Speaker: I am not certain what I can do. I am terribly sympathetic to Members who are waiting for replies. I have been a Member of the House for more than a quarter of a century, so I know how important it is--

Mr. John Bercow (Buckingham) rose--

Madam Speaker: Order. I have not finished yet. The hon. Gentleman has been a Member for only a few years.

9 Mar 2000 : Column 1201

I understand how important it is to receive punctual replies. I do not know what I can do and I understand the situation only too well. I shall do my utmost to be helpful. Now--Mr. Bercow.

Mr. Bercow: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I readily acknowledge that it probably seems that I have been here for a lot longer than three years.

Further to the point of order of my hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset (Mr. Bruce), may I seek your guidance specifically about correspondence with, and replies from, the Prime Minister? In January, I had a brief correspondence with him and, four weeks ago, I wrote him a four-line letter requiring a yes or no reply. To that letter, I have received a holding reply saying that the Prime Minister will endeavour to furnish me with an answer as soon as he reasonably can, but such an answer has not yet been forthcoming. Can you, Madam Speaker, offer any guidance about the inner recesses of the Prime Minister's mind?

Madam Speaker: I cannot help the hon. Gentleman on that one.

Mr. Paul Tyler (North Cornwall): Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. We understand that, despite your great influence, the problem of correspondence with Departments may be outside your direct powers. However, will you consider the related problem of the long delays in the answers to some written questions? The number of written questions that are not answered on the named day is increasing in a number of Departments. That is a matter of great concern to all Members and directly relates to the business of the House. Could you consider that problem at the same time?

Madam Speaker: Yes, I am happy to take on that additional burden. I shall do what I can to be helpful in all those matters. It is important for the functioning of the House that we get our business done speedily and efficiently.

Mr. Eric Forth (Bromley and Chislehurst): Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. Do you share my concern that the more dilatory Ministers are in replying to questions, the more there will be a temptation for Members to table further questions to pursue the original one? The danger is that if we are not careful the whole system will get completely clogged because of ministerial arrogance and indifference to the parliamentary process.

I know that that will concern you on a number of levels, Madam Speaker, such as the relationship between the Government and the House, over which you preside, and the administration of the House through the Table Office,

9 Mar 2000 : Column 1202

over which you also happily preside, along with the Clerks. Surely there is a danger that owing to the Government's dilatoriness and arrogance, we will become mired in the parliamentary questions process, and that will adversely affect the effectiveness of the House.

Madam Speaker: The right hon. Gentleman is expressing his opinion, which he has every right to do in the House, and I am prepared to listen and to understand. A few moments ago, I gave a sincere undertaking that I would do my best to help the House.

Dr. Julian Lewis (New Forest, East): On a point of order, Madam Speaker. As you know, I seldom raise points of order, but I think that this one is appropriate. Did you notice that the Prime Minister, in a reply yesterday, and the Leader of the House, in a reply today, did not deny the substance of the remarks of the Liberal Democrat leader in the other place, Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank, when he said that the Prime Minister had offered to create more Liberal Democrat peers in return for favourable voting? Is not that an abuse of the procedures of Parliament?

Madam Speaker: Points of order should relate to something on which I can undertake to try to help the House, in terms of our proceedings. I am not responsible for the comments made by Back Benchers or Ministers.

Mr. Owen Paterson (North Shropshire): Further to the point of order made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth), Madam Speaker. Will you advise me on written answers in which the Minister, in this case, the Home Secretary, hides behind national security? I asked a simple question last week about


I was told:


    The information requested cannot be provided for security reasons.--[Official Report, 7 March 2000; Vol. 345, c. 568W.]

Madam Speaker: That is not a point of order for me. The hon. Gentleman must use the Order Paper and opportunities in the House. The cost of keeping Senator Pinochet here is not a matter for me.

BILL PRESENTED

Misuse of Drugs (Amendment)

Mr. Paul Flynn, supported by Mr. Gordon Prentice and Mr. Austin Mitchell, presented a Bill to allow the production, supply, possession and use of cannabis and cannabis resin for medicinal purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 9 June, and to be printed [Bill 85].

9 Mar 2000 : Column 1201

9 Mar 2000 : Column 1203

Orders of the Day

ROYAL PARKS (TRADING) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 90(6) (Second Reading Committees), That the Bill be now read a Second time.

Question agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee, pursuant to Standing Order No. 63 (Committal of Bills).

Race Relations (Amendment) Bill [Lords]

Order for Second Reading read.

1.13 pm

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Jack Straw): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

The Bill is a fundamental part of our programme to achieve racial equality in this country. One of the Government's central aims is to achieve a society where there is respect for all, regardless of their race, colour or creed, and a society that celebrates its cultural richness and ethnic diversity. That is not only inherently right but essential for Britain's economic and social success.

In the world of business, it is increasingly clear that the world-class organisations capable of surviving and adapting in a global marketplace are those that value and embrace diversity. A successful multicultural society is not simply a question of equality for a minority; it is an essential competitive strategy for the UK, benefiting each and every one of us regardless of our religion or the colour of our skin.

All countries have to have an effective system of immigration control. The UK is no exception, but it is worth remembering that in many ways we are a nation of migrants: ours is a history of successive waves of migration, both in and out of this country. Many of the newcomers who have arrived on our shores lawfully have had a very great deal to give. It is on these successive waves of migration that much of our society has been built. For example, Caribbean nurses came in the 1960s, in response to calls made by the then Minister of Health, Enoch Powell, to meet labour shortages in the United Kingdom. Gujeratis came to Lancashire to work in the textile mills, following advertisements placed in India and Pakistan by Lancashire mill owners.

Everyone understands the concern that exists about those who arrive in this country in abuse of our system of control. None the less, there have been moments in our history when anxieties about those who are lawfully present in the United Kingdom have threatened to spill over into divisions that could permanently have scarred us all. In the 1930s, our democracy was threatened by the rise of fascists in this country and their attacks on many groups, but especially the Jewish community.

Race relations reached another low ebb in the late-1950s and early-1960s. Signs outside lodgings reading "No dogs, no Irish, no blacks" were not

9 Mar 2000 : Column 1204

uncommon. People were refused service in shops and cafes solely on the grounds of their race. It was lawful to be openly racist in electoral campaigns.

Things have changed significantly since then, and we ought to be proud of that, but the sea change in attitudes is no accident. It is in large part due to the three race relations Bills of the past 35 years. Each, I am proud to say, was brought before the House by a Labour Government.

However, there are no grounds for complacency. We know very well that real race equality has not yet been achieved. We know that many people--often the children and grandchildren of immigrants, born and bred in this country, but with a different coloured skin or a different sounding name from the majority--still suffer from discrimination and prejudice for that reason and no other.

The Bill will ensure equality for everyone, regardless of skin colour, surname, or other irrelevant factors. It significantly updates the Race Relations Act 1976, and it is the first piece of legislation to do so for almost 25 years.

The Bill has three main purposes: to extend the Race Relations Act in relation to discrimination and victimisation by public authorities; to make chief officers of police vicariously liable for acts of racial discrimination by police officers; and to amend an exemption under the 1976 Act for acts done for the purpose of safeguarding national security, thus remedying a provision that we believe is incompatible with the European convention on human rights.

Hon. Members are aware that on 27 January I announced to the House that the Government would table amendments in Committee to amend the Bill in relation to indirect discrimination, and to place a positive duty on public authorities to promote race equality.

Today, I shall describe what the Bill does, and explain the effect of the amendments that the Government will seek to make in those important areas.

Let me explain briefly what the 1976 Act does, as the Bill amends that principal Act. The 1976 Act makes it unlawful for anybody to discriminate on racial grounds in relation to employment, training and education, the provision of goods, facilities and services, and in respect of certain other specified activities. It provides for individuals who have been discriminated against to bring proceedings and to claim damages in employment tribunals or designated county courts. The 1976 Act established the Commission for Racial Equality, and gave it independent strategic investigative and enforcement powers.

The 1976 Act applies to discrimination by public authorities in employment, training and education, and the provision of goods, facilities and services. However, it has been found by the courts to apply only when the act in question is at least similar to an act that could be committed by a private person. The legislation does not generally apply to functions that fall outside the specified matters. The precise distinction between functions that are covered and those that are not is unclear, and is clarified in only piecemeal fashion by decisions of the courts.

One of the paradoxes of the legislation is that, in practice, it has had a greater impact on the private sector than on the public sector. There is no extensive regulatory impact assessment for the Bill because the private sector has undertaken to fulfil its responsibilities under the Bill, as it has fulfilled them under the 1976 Act.

9 Mar 2000 : Column 1205

The Bill will ensure that legislation properly and comprehensively covers similar functions that can only be carried out by a public authority.


Next Section

IndexHome Page