HC Deb 25 June 1991 vol 193 cc948-50

Lords amendment: No. 100, in page 53, line 7, leave out ("avoidance by such persons of discrimination") and insert ("performance by such persons of their duty to avoid discriminating")

Mr. John Patten

I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

When the House considered the Bill on Report the Government introduced an amendment to clause 79, which placed on my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary a duty regularly to publish information to facilitate the avoidance of discrimination on the grounds of race, sex or any other improper ground by persons engaged in the whole area of the administration of justice. Lords amendment No. 100 builds upon and clarifies 'that provision, and I commend it to the House.

Mr. Sheerman

This is probably the last time that I shall comment on anything in the Bill—I am sure that some Members will be pleased about that.

The amendment would change the wording of clause 79 to establish the principle that those administering criminal justice have a duty to avoid discriminating on the grounds of race, sex or any other improper ground. We pushed hard for that idea in Committee, and once again we see the fruits of our work coming from another place. It is rather odd making a case in Committee in the House of Commons and then seeing the same arguments—although they may be a little more eloquently deployed—used in the House of Lords, where they seem to have some magic ingredient that enables them to be accepted.

The Minister deserves at least some congratulations, although he will not get all of them, because I have some small reservations about the Government's attitude. As a compromise, following pressure from Baroness Flather and other peers in the parliamentary all-party penal affairs group, the Government accepted that the Bill should include a statement of the principle that decisions of the criminal justice system should not discriminate on the ground of race.

It is revealing and important to put it on the record that, on 21 March, during the Committee stage in the House of Lords, Lord Elton—a former Conservative Home Office Minister—said: I was a reluctant convert to the view that there appears to be an element of discrimination against ethnic minority offenders in our criminal processes. In his reply, I asked my noble Friend to consider what are the social effects of that. The fabric of our society is only sustainable if the mass of society consents to the criteria on which justice is administered. If a particular discrete, identifiable and self-identifiable sector of that society believes that there is a system of justice which is just for other people but not just for them, whether or not that belief is well founded, the effects upon our society as a whole will be very damaging because those people will see the judicial system not as a means of maintaining law and order but as a means of keeping 'them' down and 'us' up. That is a recipe for internecine warfare and is very dangerous."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 26 March 1991; Vol. 527, c. 1040–41.] I welcome that important statement by Lord Elton, and the fact that it was made in the debate on this very amendment. We have made that point consistently throughout our long proceedings on the Bill. We must not only ensure that there is no discrimination in the criminal justice system—and, at the moment, there is evidence to suggest that there is; we must prove to those who feel that there is discrimination that there is not.

9.30 pm

I warmly welcomed the Minister's invitation, following the Report stage of the Bill, to meet him at the Home Office with representatives of the black community, black probation officers, lawyers and so on. We had a good exchange of views. I thank the Minister for that and acknowledge that some progress was made.

Having given my little bit of praise, let me go on to say that, to understand the strength of feeling on the matter among the black community and other members of ethnic minorities, we need first to appreciate the widespread and mounting concern about the disproportionately large number of black people in the prison system. The proportion of the prison population coming from ethnic minorities has risen—from 12.5 per cent. in 1985 to 16 per cent. in 1989. Although ethnic minorities constitute less than 5 per cent. of the general population, the proportion of female prisoners from ethnic minorites is even greater, at 24 per cent. That is a worrying figure.

I see that the Home Secretary is in his place, and I must point out to him that it is not as worrying as the appalling and sad figures that we have received this evening—I believe that they will be published officially in the media tomorrow morning—which show a 17.6 per cent. increase in the crime figures. I say that with great sadness. Those figures must depress all of us in the House who believe that law and order are so important. Perhaps the Government will now accept our invitation to talk jointly about crime prevention measures upon which we can all agree.

There are two reasons why the disproportionately large figures for ethnic minorities cannot simply be attributed to differential crime rates or to the fact that a higher proportion of the black population are in the crime-prone teenage groups. The first is that the Home Office statistics on the ethnic breakdown of the prison population, first compiled in 1985, and published annually since then, show that members of ethnic minorities entering prison have, on average, fewer previous convictions than white prisoners, and that, before conviction, they were less likely to receive bail than comparable white defendants.

That has worrying implications for the way in which the ethnic minority community views the criminal justice system, and there is a measure of justification for its perception, as hon. Members on both sides of the House will agree. The figures suggest that people from ethnic minorities who commit offences are more likely to end up in prison than comparable white offenders. Therefore, although we welcome the Government's change of heart and mind, the Opposition will take a little of the credit for adding to the creative process to which any sensible Bill gives rise.

The second reason is that, although the findings of research studies conflict to some extent—I have always been honest about that—a disturbing number of studies contain indications that members of ethnic minorities are treated differently from white people at various stages of the criminal justice process. We have argued throughout our proceedings on the Bill that a statutory duty such as that expressed in the amendment is essential. We believe that, in drawing attention in primary legislation to a duty not to discriminate, Parliament would be making an important statement about the significance that it attaches to the principle of non-discrimination. The existence of such a provision is psychologically important.

I do not know whether you, Mr. Speaker, would agree with me—given your considerable knowledge of legislation—but in my view it is not always just the words that matter; sometimes the psychological impact on our citizens is even more important. You probably do agree, Mr. Speaker; you have often said as much as I have passed the Chair.

During the passage of the Bill, the Opposition have consistently argued that such a non-discriminatory duty is important; the Government, however, have been slow to accept its importance, and have continually resisted our amendments. They have now introduced the notion of a duty not to discriminate , but have done so in a rather indirect way, incorporating that duty in a clause that deals with the publication of information. Given the importance of the issue, we feel that it should have featured at the front of the Bill, as a key principle, rather than being buried in a rather obscure clause at the end. The Government have moved forward a little way, but they have done so in a grudging manner that will not impress all who are concerned about racism in the criminal justice system.

Let me end on a positive note. My visit to the Home Office proved valuable: communication was established, and some creative ideas were developed as a basis for future exchanges. We were also given a cup of tea. I promise that in a short time, when I am a Home Office Minister, I shall reciprocate and extend the same co-operation to the Minister—if he survives the contest in Oxford.

Although we are a bit discontented about the Government's grudging attitude, we accept that that is the way of these things. Let me say—and it may be the last thing that I say on this Bill—that progress on the less controversial areas has been rewarding: some people's lives will certainly be changed, or at least touched, by the slight improvements that our creative approach has secured.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords amendments agreed to.

Forward to