| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Rowe: Did the Childline inquiry establish the disturbing fact that bullying in Scottish schools is disproportionately against white English children? If so, can he comment on that, too?
Mr. Woodward: The comment to make on that is extremely simple: wherever bullying is found, it is a very bad thing. If the Conservative party had chosen to listen to the children's charities and talk to the professionals about section 28 and the reasons for its reforms before adopting its three-line Whip, it would have learned that homophobic bullying is a major problem in schools. If the hon. Gentleman wants to take an interest in bullying, I can only suggest that he contact some of those charities before casting his vote on the Local Government Bill.
Mr. Gerald Howarth: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Woodward: I will not, but I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will have time to make his own speech.
This generation and this Parliament did not create most of the conditions and circumstances with which British society lives today, but they have the opportunity and responsibility to deal with them. Millions of people--
British people--with different-coloured skins all want to be part of that society and to share its opportunities. Britain is not a nation defined simply by its education system, its incomes, its geography or its borders. It is defined by its shared hopes and shared dreams and the principles and aspirations of all the people who live here and make up this country.
Multiculturalism does not have to be feared; we have to desire it. The question is not one of political mandates, but of doing what is decent and right. If we get that right, we can make one nation of two, but the enemies of that common purpose are not those who are black or even those who are white. They are prejudice, intolerance, fear and indifference. That is why we need the Bill. It may be small, but it has a huge moral question at its heart. We must ask whether it is right to continue to impose a lesser start in life on members of entire ethnic groups and to expect of one part of our country a degree of acceptance and resolution that we would never ask of someone who is white. Shall we be equals or shall we be divided?
Unlike the shadow Foreign Secretary, I think that British people know and care about what we are discussing today. They want an end to the violence and lawlessness. They do not think that discrimination is a good thing. They do not think that it should be tolerated. The vast majority of people in this country, white or black, want to live together harmoniously and with shared goals and hopes. They want justice, whether they be black or white, and the Bill is one more step towards that fairness, that justice and that equality.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst):
I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that Her Majesty has signified Her Royal Assent to the following Acts:
Representation of the People Act 2000
Transport Salaried Staffs' Association (Amendment of Rules) Act 2000
Mr. Simon Hughes (Southwark, North and Bermondsey):
I begin by observing that the Queen works quickly--at least today she has, because we only finished consideration of the Representation of the People Act 2000 in the early hours of this morning. I am glad to know that she has been on the job today early on.
The hon. Member for Witney (Mr. Woodward) made a very good speech, as he did last year, from the Tory Benches, on sexual orientation equality issues. He is clearly committed to the equality agenda and I congratulate him on what he said. I share much of his view; indeed, my hon. Friends and I always have. I must tell him, however, that I have never thought it right for someone who was elected under one set of colours to adopt another set of colours without the authority of the electorate. I think that a Member who dissents from the view of his or her party--[Interruption.] I have never believed that Members should cross the Floor without obtaining the view of the electorate. It is entirely honourable for those who feel that their party has left
them, or they have left their party, to continue to sit as independents. [Interruption.] I am aware of many historical examples, but I am presenting my personal opinion clearly. I have never found it acceptable for Members to cross the Floor from any party to any party, and that includes my party. Whatever views a Member may hold, I think it is always right for that Member to ensure that the electorate also accept that he or she should be more at home in another party.
Mr. Peter Bottomley:
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Hughes:
Not for the moment.
As the hon. Member for Witney and others have said, the Bill is important. It is important because it touches on important issues mentioned by many speakers today. The right hon. Member for Fareham (Sir P. Lloyd) gained considerable experience of dealing with these matters when he was a Home Office Minister: I thank him for that service, which he performed extremely well. By telling us, quietly but none the less horrifically, that he continues to receive hate mail regularly, the hon. Member for Ealing, Southall (Mr. Khabra) reminded us that we are a long way from a tolerant and accepting society.
The Home Secretary himself made clear how important the Bill was to him. I have no doubt about the Government's commitment, and indeed the Home Secretary's personal commitment, to equality issues. I am relieved that, in relation to issues on which I thought the Government were inadequate and weak at the outset, they have been persuaded, and have been honest enough to say they have been persuaded. That means that the Bill will eventually be much stronger than it was originally.
For my constituents, and for those of many of us who represent multiracial communities, these are day-to-day issues. As the hon. Member for Witney said, they matter hugely to such communities. Twenty-five per cent. of my constituents are black or Asian. It is not just that many experience discrimination, and find--this was referred to earlier--that they have a greater chance of being excluded from school or doing less well there, or of being arrested or detained by the police, or of going to prison, or of being out of work. Nearly every week, people come to my surgery and tell me that they are being racially harassed, simply because of the colour of their skin.
As was graphically represented in a Benetton advertisement a couple of years ago, people are not born with a sense of difference; it is taught and it is caught, and if that happens it is because we as a society are doing something wrong. If we are doing something wrong, we need to put it right quickly, because every harassed individual, every attacked individual and every wrongly imprisoned individual means that society is not doing its job entirely successfully.
Only the other week, we saw another example of that locally. Black youngsters on their way home, for no reason other than the fact that they were black, were assaulted by older white males. That is not acceptable in any United Kingdom constituency: all possible action must be taken to deal with it, by us and others.
Jackie Ballard (Taunton):
I know that my hon. Friend represents an urban constituency. Is he aware of a report published by the National Association of Citizens Advice
Mr. Hughes:
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Our right hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) had personal experience, of which the House is aware, of the invidious position in which members of small minority ethnic communities can find themselves in what are in any case small communities. I visit other constituencies that are much less multicultural than mine, and, when I spot just one or two black or Asian people going about their business, I reflect on how difficult life must often be for them and their families. Indeed, many people have testified to that.
We have had a Home Office-filled agenda this week. I do not know whether it is a record, but we have dealt with three Second Readings of major Home Office Bills in four days. On Monday we dealt with the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Bill, which was necessary and, at least in significant parts, good. On Tuesday we dealt with the Criminal Justice (Mode of Trial) (No. 2) Bill, which was unnecessary and entirely bad. The encouraging thing about today's Bill is that I can tell the Government that we consider it necessary and entirely good, although it does not go far enough. The Government have accepted that, and have undertaken to go further. The Bill will get better, and we welcome the Government's commitment to improve it.
This Bill deals with two issues that are central to the way in which we run our society and our state. One is an issue that we have debated several times this week: what are the rights of the citizen relative to those of the state? The other, which we have not debated this week, is the question of the rights of one individual relative to those of another. The Bill is both a liberty Bill and an equality Bill, which is why we should be particularly careful to support it enthusiastically and ensure that we get it right.
We have come a long way. As has been pointed out, the Race Relations Act 1976, which was ground-breaking legislation, has in many respects stood the test of time, but it is not before time that we now seek to amend it. The life of a generation probably elapses between the act of legislation and the effect of that legislation fully filtering through to the society on whose behalf laws such as this are passed. What we do this year will probably not be entirely effective for 10 or 20 years. We must remember that legislation is only the beginning: it simply provides a backstop, or a framework. Of itself, it is not enough. To their credit, the Government have also promoted the Human Rights Act 1998, which will be implemented this year and which will be another helpful weapon in the armoury.
As the Home Secretary graciously did, I pay tribute to Lord Lester of Herne Hill, who has been active in these matters since the 1970s, and who has contributed greatly to the winning of the argument for the Bill's extension and to persuading the Government of how much further we need to go. I also pay tribute to the Lawrence inquiry judge and to his assessors, who eventually produced a controversial but necessary statement--a statement that
came from, in a sense, an unexpected quarter. When he was appointed, there was some question about whether Sir William Macpherson would produce proposals that would be seen to take up the concerns of minority communities, but he did, and the way in which the Government have accepted and adopted those proposals is also welcome.
Finally, I pay tribute to the Commission for Racial Equality, which, over the years, has persisted in putting its case effectively. Its outgoing chairman, Sir Herman Ouseley, continued to do that regularly and effectively. We should be grateful to the CRE as a body--it has become more effective over the years--and for all the ways in which it has helped us all. I wish its new chair every success, and hope that he follows in the footsteps of his predecessors.
One of the controversial issues is the extent to which the Bill will make the police feel uncomfortable as they change their practice. There is much good practice in the police. The inquiry's view that the police were institutionally racist should not be taken by police officers as a criticism of each or any of them individually. The report is clear about that. It expressly says in its conclusions that one should not confuse racism of individuals with a finding of institutional racism of the police force as a whole:
For 25 years, local government has had a duty to tackle racial discrimination and to promote race equality. That has still not been achieved. The Local Government Association's report just last year said:
In that context, may I say how welcome it is that the CRE and Operation Black Vote piloted an initiative involving me and several colleagues in the House taking part in a work-shadowing scheme, in which young black or Asian people from other walks of life work with us, as part of trying to build a new generation of people and a more reflective, representative Britain? If the young person who is working with me, Imran Ahmed, a 21-year-old of Pakistani origin, is the same as all his colleagues on the scheme, they have the potential to show how hugely society will benefit from much greater participation by people such as them.
We have at last had the concession from the Government that they will support an amendment to the Bill, so that the Bill's provisions cover not only direct discrimination but indirect discrimination. From our point of view--Lord Lester made the point clearly in the other place--that was always necessary. The legislation could never have been adequate if it did not oblige public authorities to act in a way that was neither directly nor indirectly discriminatory.
I have a question about that. I find it difficult to understand how the Government could have been advised that the Bill complied with the European convention on human rights--it is still on the Bill--when it did not include indirect discrimination. I do not understand how the advice can have led them to that conclusion. I should be grateful if Ministers explained how they started off in that direction, even though they have now been persuaded otherwise.
Because they are important, I want to mention the two definitional things that hon. Members have wanted to make clear in the debate. Indirect discrimination is not the same as unwitting or unintentional discrimination. It is something that people do not necessarily think about at all, but that has the indirect consequence of being discriminatory--for example, the way in which people recruit, advertise or involve people in another activity.
Likewise, institutional racism is not necessarily intended racism. The ideas are not linked. We have to be careful to distinguish them. I hope that, just as the Government have changed their view on that, we will soon receive full-hearted support from the Conservative Benches on the matter, which the Conservative shadow Home Secretary today appeared to withhold. We need individual change and institutional change. Both are needed soon.
On one issue, we need to think beyond the Bill. It could be done in Committee, but, if not, it should be done elsewhere--and soon. I do not argue that there should be separate organisations that specifically concentrate on gender equality issues--the Equal Opportunities Commission has done that--and race equality issues, but there is still a case for something that brings those together and allows common views to be expressed.
My colleagues and I have argued for a long time that some form of overarching equal opportunities commission that respects the different competences would be a good thing. It would serve us well if we as a society did something about that.
Linked to that, we need to go back to the issue of having an independent Police Complaints Authority. We need to work out how the different adjudicating authorities can come together, so that we do not have the CRE exercising certain functions and the PCA exercising others. The point was made earlier and I support it. There is quite a big issue here about how we achieve effective, speedy and patently clear adjudication on issues of racial inequality, racial injustice and racial prejudice, and other discrimination.
As important as any legislation is the process of education. If we do not educate better against discrimination, we are not dealing with the cause of much of the prejudice and the discrimination in our society.
3.29 pm
we do not accept that it was universally the cause of the failure of this investigation, any more than we accept that a finding of institutional racism within the police service means that all police officers are racist . . . It is incumbent upon every institution to examine their policies and the outcome of their policies and practices to guard against disadvantaging any section of our communities.
The perception is that we needed the jolt that was provided by the inquiry to move institutions on. Two days ago, I was at the Local Government Association fire conference in Southampton. A recent report has been published about the fire service, which needs to move fundamentally if it is to be no longer a racist service, but an equal opportunities service. Many organisations need that change. We need it here. This institution needs to become less racist. We are not a representative Parliament, and our parties are not representative.
Local government has a worse record than that of the economy as a whole for employing Black, Asian and other ethnic minority people.
So even the part of government that has been working on the agenda for a quarter of a century has not yet achieved, or fully delivered. So much worse are we here, and so much more do we need to do. I welcome what the Home
Secretary said about the way in which he has addressed those issues in the Home Office. Each Department of Government and each public authority needs to ask itself those questions.
25 per cent. of authorities do not have a written policy to provide services fairly to all sections of the community.
51 per cent. of local authorities do not monitor their workforce with respect to equal opportunities.
Only 10 per cent. of authorities that monitor their staff have workforces that reflect the local Black, Asian or other ethnic minority population.
Black, Asian and other ethnic minority people are under-represented in senior positions in the local government workforce.
Only 3 per cent. of councillors are Black, Asian or other ethnic minority people ...
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |