| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
John Bercow: The fifth of April 2005 witnessed the first of the two Second Reading debates on the Bill that this House has had. On that occasion I had the privilege of expressing my strong and vociferous support for the Bill, and in a thinly attended Chamber I took 25 minutes to do so. Tonight, I shall be much briefer because I am conscious that others wish to contribute to the debate.
This is a first-class Bill. It was given an extremely pithy and eloquent recommendation to the House by the Secretary of State about half an hour ago. It will establish the commission for equality and human rights. It will legislate to prohibit discrimination in the provision of goods, services and facilities on grounds of religion, belief or sexual orientation, and it will impose a duty on public authorities to promote gender equality. These provisions are all extremely welcome, and in two specific senses. First, they are welcome in the sense that they are not merely aspirational or the expression of a theory. They will make a concrete difference in terms of improving people's lives, which has to be the ultimate test of the appropriateness of a particular piece of legislation. Secondly—this is not insignificant either—they send out a signal as to the type of society in which the House believes, and I believe that the legislation is good.
In all courtesy to the Minister, whose stewardship of the Bill I greatly respect, I think that she would be unwise—and she is not—if she were not fully to heed and reflect on two of the most powerful, impassioned and convincing speeches that I have heard in the House in a long time, namely those from the hon. Members for Leicester, East (Keith Vaz) and for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott). Their speeches gave a real meaning to the idea, old-fashioned though it might be, that one comes into the Chamber and listens open-mindedly to a contribution with no preconceptions and is influenced in one judgment by that speech. That is the best tribute that I can give to those two hon. Members. My thinking was influenced as they spoke.
The Bill was good before and, as a result of amendments in the course of legislative scrutiny, it is better now. I think that it is unlikely that the House will be divided tonight, but if there are people who are genuinely opposed in principle to the Bill, they might wish to test their opinion in the Lobby. However, I strongly support the Bill and, if there is a Division, I shall express that support by going, with pride, through the Aye Lobby.
9.42 pm
Keith Vaz
: I begin by thanking the hon. Member for Buckingham (John Bercow) for his kind comments about both me and my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott). We are not used to having such nice things said about us.
16 Jan 2006 : Column 665
I return the compliment because the hon. Gentleman always makes thoughtful and impassioned speeches from the Opposition Benches.
I shall be brief. What is good about the Bill is that it has the support of both sides of the House. Many speeches today were based on the experience of so many Members. I shall concentrate on the issue of race, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington, because it is obviously of constituency interest to me. Forty-nine per cent. of my constituents are of Asian or Afro-Caribbean origin, so it is an issue that I have followed during the 19 years that I have been in Parliament. I am sure that my hon. Friend will agree when I say that I cannot remember a time when there has been such a consensus over an issue of this sort. It is so good to see such a consensus.
I thank my hon. Friend the Minister for going to such an extent to meet the objections that we expressed in the amendments that we tabled. It is good to hear from the Secretary of State, because he is the man who will be making the appointments to the new commission. His statements tonight about it being inconceivable that the commission could be formed without proper representation of the black and Asian communities is something that we warmly welcome. I look forward to seeing those appointments when they are made. I am sure that a number of the groups that have been involved in putting forward views on the Bill, such as the CRE, the 1990 Trust and the Greater London authority, will want to put forward their representations as well.
I was pleased by the points made by the Minister when she said clearly that if the structures were not put in place the Government would have to think about what they needed to do to ensure that objections were met. As I have said, that is a clear statement. I know that she fell short of a commitment to me to bring forward legislation, but there are many Members in the Chamber—I see my hon. Friends the Members for Tooting (Mr. Khan) and for Brent, South (Ms Butler) and others—who would be prepared to bring forward a private Member's Bill to ensure that the commitments that have been made from the Government Dispatch Box are adhered to by the new commission. I hope, however, that we will not need to do so. I share the optimism of my hon. Friend the Minister, who performs her duties with enthusiasm. I remind her that it is high time that she joined the payroll vote after her sterling efforts on the Bill.
I end by thanking two Ministers who are not in the Chamber, but who have had an important say in the progress of the Bill. I am grateful to my near neighbour, my right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, West (Ms Hewitt), the former Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, and to Lord Falconer, the Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs, who has always taken a strong interest in these issues. He was excellent when the Bill was in the Lords, and in his ministerial capacity he has gone out of his way to make sure that he uses the power of appointment—one of the most important powers available to Ministers—to ensure that a number of black and Asian people have been appointed to positions in his portfolio. Ministers should remember that when they exercise power, but I wish the Bill and the commission well.
16 Jan 2006 : Column 666
9.45 pm
Mr. Gerald Howarth (Aldershot) (Con): I strongly support the observations made by my neighbour and hon. Friend the Member for South-West Surrey (Mr. Hunt). If the Bill achieves what he hopes it will achieve it will serve some useful purpose, but I have reservations about it. I do not wish to rain on anyone's parade, but it is important that such concerns, which extend beyond the House, are expressed.
I have grave concerns about the Bill because of its likely impact on freedom of choice and expression. It is likely to reinforce the situation in which certain minorities no longer command equality but are, indeed, placed in a position of superiority. Anyone who expresses a contrary view will then be exposed to the threat of prosecution. There are genuine fears about the Bill. The Secretary of State has tried to assure us that the Bill removes fear, but in many quarters ordinary decent and reasonable people fear that it will serve not to remove fear, but to increase it. That is not an off-the-cuff assertion, but is backed up by facts.
Mr. Ed Greening, for example, has been removed from Wiltshire's adoption panel because he believes that children thrive better in a normal home, with a man and a woman as adoptive parents, than in a homosexual household. The Labour Government have gone further and in "Supporting Families" they state that marriage is the
However, a man has been removed from a job that he has undertaken for five years not because he believes that homosexual adoption is wrong, but because his first preference would always be
"There is now a lot of pressure to give equal status to same-sex partners, who in some cases are not going to be as appropriate as heterosexual married couples."
To most normal people in this country, that will be a statement of the bleeding obvious, but in the current climate, which has been reinforced by the Bill, it is likely to attract a police interview.
Indeed, that is what happened to Lynette Burrowes, who said in a Radio 5 Live interview that she did not think homosexuals should be allowed to adopt. PC Plod was dispatched because, according to a Scotland Yard spokesman,
ominously reminiscent of Robespierre's committee of public safety—to investigate homophobic, racist and domestic incidents because they were "priority crimes". My son is a young solicitor, and I suggest we ask the parents of the young solicitor who was killed last week whether that should be a priority crime, rather than some of the things to which the police must now devote their time.
New Labour's new thought police were soon pursuing the chairman of the Muslim Council of Britain, Sir Iqbal Sacranie. He, too, was investigated for expressing a view that is a central tenet of his faith. The same thing happened two years ago to the Bishop of
16 Jan 2006 : Column 667
Chester. When I complained to the chief constable of Cheshire, he told me:
"I do feel that all community leaders need to be careful that their views however carefully crafted are not misinterpreted through headlines in the media or used by disturbed individuals as an excuse to target particular individuals."
That is simply unbelievable. For the expression of a deeply held Christian view by a bishop of the established Church, of which Her Majesty the Queen is supreme governor, to be subject to a police caution is a measure of the depth to which we have sunk.
As we read in yesterday's The Mail on Sunday, the Association of Chief Police Officers has issued a guidance note, which states:
"if a complainant feels his allegation is not being taken seriously—even if it isn't true—he will have been 'victimised' by police . . . The onus falls entirely on the police to manage the interaction to ensure that the victim has no residual feelings of secondary victimisation."
The police are in a no-win situation—it does not matter how careful they are because they will be judged on how the alleged victim views their attitude.
I fear that the Bill will accelerate the process of intolerance against Christian views. I am pleased to say that no action was ever going to be taken against Sir Iqbal, but the lack of prosecution resulted from the public authorities' burning desire not to be seen to offend Muslim opinion. By contrast, Christian views can be offended with impunity: "Jerry Springer—The Opera" was deeply offensive to many Christians, but their concerns were loftily dismissed by Michael Grade and the BBC.
The padre of my church, to whom I was speaking yesterday, has recently returned from operations in Iraq. Over Christmas, he protested to Channel 4 about the trailer for a programme called, "The Magic of Jesus", but the operator to whom he spoke simply put the phone down on him. Would either Channel 4 or the BBC have dared to stage a play making fun of the Prophet Mohammed? I suggest not. However, it is true that a play that offended a minority group in Birmingham, and which caused it to react violently, was abandoned.
Tonight's Evening Standard carries a report entitled, "Gay police want ban on Christian association":
"Leaders of the Gay Police Association (GPA) have made a formal complaint to Met chiefs demanding that they bar members of the Christian Police Association from the force as they do members of the BNP."
It is deeply offensive to associate the Christian Church with the British National party.
If the Bill is enacted, I fear that there will be pressure on some of our ancient towns to abandon public support for Christmas celebrations.
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |