HC Deb 30 October 2000 vol 355 cc516-21

'After section 66(1) of the Race Relations Act 1976 (Assistance by Commission) there is inserted— (1A) Subsection (1) shall also apply to proceedings or prospective proceedings under the Human Rights Act 1998 in which the complaint or claim includes or is proposed to include discrimination on racial grounds by a public authority. (1B) For the purposes of subsection (1A) a public authority shall have the same meaning as in section 19B of this Act.".'.—[Mr. Simon Hughes.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

3.38 pm
Mr. Simon Hughes (Southwark, North and Bermondsey)

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

My hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Jackie Ballard) apologises for not being present, Mr. Speaker. All roads from Taunton are cut off.

In the Race Relations Act 1976, a power is granted for the Commission for Racial Equality to provide assistance through advice and support during legal proceedings. It is set out clearly. The provisions relate to proceedings or prospective proceedings under the Act. An individual who is a claimant or might be a claimant, or complainant, can apply to the commission for help. The commission then considers the matter—I have had constituency experience of such cases—and if it thinks that there is an issue of principle or if it thinks that it would be unreasonable to expect the applicant to deal with the case unaided because it is difficult or because of the relationship between the applicant and the body complained against, or for other special reasons, it, the commission, can give help. The new clause represents an attempt to extend that power in light of the passage of the Human Rights Act 1998, which came into force at the beginning of this month.

I want to say again publicly what Ministers have heard me say elsewhere. I and the Liberal Democrats greatly welcome the Human Rights Act, and we welcome its passage into law in England, Wales and Northern Ireland, and in Scotland where it was passed last year. I and my colleagues join the Minister and the Secretary of State in welcoming that.

As a result of that Act coming into law, someone may want to bring an action under the Human Rights Act only or under a combination of the Human Rights Act and the Race Relations Act 1976—or the Act as amended if the Bill becomes law, which we very much hope it will. Under the new clause, we propose that the commission's power to give help should be extended

to proceedings or prospective proceedings under the Human Rights Act 1998 when there is a claim or prospective claim that includes discrimination on racial grounds by a public authority. It is not a matter central to the Bill, which deals with discrimination and positive duties in law. It is an ancillary proposal, and would bring the Bill into line with existing legislation.

There are obvious reasons why we want to put this proposal to the House now, and I hope that the Minister will give a positive response. I am mindful of the fact that we debated these matters in Committee. That seems a long time ago—it was the other side of a long recess for the Commons—when the Human Rights Act had not yet come into law, so things have now moved on.

The first reason is that, as the Minister will understand—it does not need anyone to persuade him—a person might bring an action that at one and the same time could be an action under the Race Relations Act and the Human Rights Act. It would be nonsense if two separate actions in law were started: indeed, the courts would be unhappy about that if they were on the same issues. It would be logical to join the complaints together.

Ministers may give the technical answer that advice to people would be covered under the Race Relations (Amendment) Bill or the original 1976 Act, but the stronger case may be on discrimination under the Human Rights Act and the straightforward implementation of the convention through English law. The Commission for Racial Equality or others may say that that is the best way to proceed. A case may proceed on the basis of racial discrimination, but it would be better, and a person would be more likely to succeed, if the applicant took action under the Human Rights Act.

That is the first reason why we believe that the commission's power should be extended. It uses that power carefully and considerately. I have had experience of the commission helping people to take cases to court, and of it turning down people who have asked for help when it has considered that their case was not justified.

Secondly, our case may be stronger now than it was before the summer because the Minister said before the recess that the Government were moving towards the creation of the Human Rights Committee of Parliament. That commitment for a Committee of both Houses was welcomed. There are one or two other such Committees. It would be the new body to consider human rights matters in the light of the implementation of the 1998 Act. I am aware—I do not think that it is confidential information—that some progress has been made in the House of Lords on agreement on the structure of the Committee, but the proposal has not yet come before the Commons. I am also aware that there have been discussions on that matter between Whips Offices and party managers. The proposal has not been lost, but it has not happened. Even if it did, things would take a while to get going—as they always do—so there is a benefit in acting now that the Bill has been introduced, to give the Committee power, even if Ministers did not think that necessary before the summer.

3.45 pm

I wish to put on the record one further important thing so that I do not take up the time of the House when we return to the matter later. My colleagues, including my hon. Friend the Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler), who is Liberal Democrat Chief Whip and our shadow Leader of the House, have made representations to Ministers and their colleagues, and their view is generally supported by members of the Conservative Front Bench, although Conservative Members must clarify that themselves. It is an important principle that, once the Committee is set up, its Chairman, like that of the Public Accounts Committee, should, for the time being, be an Opposition Member of the House of Commons. The reasons for that are pretty obvious. It is a long-standing practice that the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee is a senior Opposition Member of Parliament, as it is thought important that it is not a Government Member who looks after public accounts and that scrutiny should come from elsewhere. The PAC is an all-party Committee that is representative of the balance of the House, but the Chair is taken by an Opposition Member who, at the moment, is the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr. Davis).

The same should apply to the Human Rights Committee, which will be a Committee of both Houses. Quite properly, the Government have the power both to introduce legislation and certify whether legislation complies with the Human Rights Act. The Secretary of State certifies on the front of the Bill that it is compliant with that Act. Therefore, the scrutiny of such matters in both the Commons and the Lords should be undertaken by a senior Opposition Member, whether a member of the Conservative party, the Liberal Democrat party or, indeed, any other Opposition party. I also state publicly our belief that, for obvious democratic reasons, that role should be undertaken by a Member of the House of Commons, not the House of Lords. Of course, there are eminent people in the House of Lords, and I pay tribute to those who have made the Bill much better during its passage through the House. Ministers have been equally courteous, but it would be invidious to list everyone who has contributed. However, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, who has pre-eminent national expertise in such matters, has contributed greatly and has worked hard, both publicly and privately, to get the Bill into the best possible shape.

Although negotiations on the Human Rights Committee are being pursued, the Committee is not in existence, so the power to set it up should be introduced now. I suspect that the Minister will respond to our debate in a second, and I hope that he will tell us that the Government will act urgently to introduce a motion to set up the Committee, which was supposed to have been established by 2 October. That meant that it should have been set up before we broke up for the summer, given that we were did not return until after that date. It is now after 2 October, Parliament is back and the Human Rights Act is in force, so there is no excuse. I therefore hope that, before this week ends, a motion to set up the Committee will be laid before the House and that, thereafter, a motion for the membership of the Committee, including its chairmanship, will be tabled.

Lastly, when the Human Rights Committee is up and running and sets up a human rights commission which, it is envisaged, will look after these matters—although that may not necessarily be the case—will the House consider whether that commission should be different from the Commission for Racial Equality? I accept that that new commission will not have the experience of the CRE. People have different views about the CRE's individual acts and expressions, but no one doubts its authoritative and greatly experienced position in giving advice in such cases. It helps meritorious cases and puts off cases without merit. People with the CRE's experience who can give such advice are to be valued.

I hope that Ministers can be positive about the new clause. I am conscious that the Bill began in the Lords and that its Report stage may be the last occasion on which we may deal with these matters. That is unusual, as most Bills start in the Commons and therefore come back to us. If Ministers do not concede the new clause, the power of the Lords to do anything about it is limited, given that they can amend only what we amend here. I therefore expect more than warm words if I am to be persuaded not to press the new clause to a Division. I hope that the Minister can be helpful.

Mr. David Lidington (Aylesbury)

I shall speak briefly to new clause 3. As I understand the proposal tabled by the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) and his party, it would allow the Commission for Racial Equality to intervene and to advise in cases arising under the Human Rights Act 1998, where the complaint involved some discrimination on racial grounds by a public authority.

The illustration that the hon. Gentleman gave the House to demonstrate the need for such a measure involved a complaint that might arise both under the Race Relations Act 1976 as amended by the Bill, and on human rights grounds. In such a case, it would be stupid for two parallel law suits to proceed.

I agree with the hon. Gentleman on that point. I am no lawyer, but I should have thought that in such a case, where the courts joined the two complaints together, and the case involved an allegation that the 1976 Act had been breached, there would indeed be a role for the commission under existing legislation, which would make the new clause unnecessary.

I went on to consider what sort of case might involve an allegation of racial discrimination by a public authority, but would not come within the remit of either the 1976 Act or the Bill. I could envisage a situation in which a citizen chose to use the Human Rights Act 1998 to try to overturn one of the specific exemptions included in the Bill or in the 1976 Act. The hon. Gentleman's new clause, if agreed to, would give the CRE the right to spend time and money on seeking, via the Human Rights Act, to overturn those aspects of race relations legislation that had been agreed by Parliament.

For that reason, I am somewhat sceptical about the proposal, although the Minister or the hon. Gentleman may be able to reassure me. I take the view that if Parliament has chosen to include in legislation specific exemptions from general statutory obligations, changes to such arrangements should be sought through Parliament via the full legislative process, not through the back-door route of a challenge under the Human Rights Act.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Mike O'Brien)

May I take this opportunity to warmly welcome you to your present seat, Mr. Speaker, and express the hope that you will long be warming it?

Members of the Standing Committee that considered the Bill are aware of the Government's thinking on the issue. The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) set out our broad view. We welcome the support given by the Liberal Democrats and all other parties to the Human Rights Act 1998 when it was passed.

The new clause, like one tabled in Committee, would enable the CRE to provide assistance in relation to alleged breaches of the 1998 Act that include allegations of racial discrimination—not just claims where the principal issue was racial discrimination, but any claim that included any aspect of racial discrimination in the context of the Human Rights Act.

The Government explained in Committee that we had given a commitment to consider a request from the Disability Rights Commission for it to have the power to assist individuals in proceedings under the Human Rights Act 1998, in light of the outcome of deliberations of the planned Human Rights Committee. Rather than considering those issues piecemeal, which would involve separately examining the Commission for Racial Equality, the DRC and the Equal Opportunities Commission, our view is that it would be better to consider in an holistic manner whether all the commissions should have the right to take such action. We feel that it is important to take such a broad-based approach—the situation should be examined in a wide context involving all three commissions, and we should give our view in due course. We also hope to take cognisance of the approach suggested by the Joint Committee, once it is established.

A further difficulty is that the new clause is not clear on how it relates to the rest of section 66 of the Race Relations Act 1976, into which it would be inserted. For example, subsections (3) and (4) of that section describe how the commission should proceed on receipt of an application for assistance under the 1976 Act, but the new clause does not appear to make a similar provision in respect of claims for assistance under the Human Rights Act 1998. That technical deficiency would leave an unacceptable gap in that important area.

However, I do not want to inform the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey that we reject his suggestion. There are arguments for his position, and we want to examine them in a broader context.

The hon. Gentleman referred to the Human Rights Committee, whose draft standing orders are under active consideration. We hope that it will start its work in the near future, when its membership has been decided. He knows very well that the usual channels decide such matters. Decisions about the Chairperson of the Committee and other matters will no doubt be made in the usual way, and I do not intend to venture further into them. I gather that the hon. Gentleman has his own route in that regard, and he doubtless knows how to make use of it.

Mr. Simon Hughes

Although I note his comments on the envisaged time scale, I want to press the Minister not on that last matter, but on the first point that he made. What time scale do the Government envisage for the completion of their review about whether the power could be granted to all commissions, irrespective of the new Committee's timetable?

Mr. O'Brien

To some extent, we are dependent on the new Committee, whose views we want to hear and which must have an opportunity to discuss the matter. I hope that it can do so quickly. The Government will examine the Committee's views and take a broad-based approach.

To some extent, as the hon. Gentleman rightly said, it is important to decide on our approach in the near future, rather than in the longer term. If we took a view on the Disability Rights Commission, for example, it would be possible to make progress fairly quickly because of the way in which the legislation is framed. However, it might take longer to do so in respect of the EOC and the CRE because we might have to frame a legislative opportunity in order to take such action.

In response to the point that was raised by the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington), the cases that will be brought by the CRE will, primarily, involve the Race Relations Act 1976, but they may raise subsidiary points involving the Human Rights Act 1998. No doubt, such points will be raised during those proceedings. In that context, I should be very surprised if a lawyer said to a court, "I shall argue the case in relation to the Race Relations Act but not in relation to the Human Rights Act." The Government need to take a view on that matter sooner rather than later—I envisage the period involved to be months rather than years, but I do not want to be pressed further on that because it will be necessary to discuss with ministerial colleagues the appropriate speed at which we should make an announcement.

4 pm

Mr. Hughes

That was an entirely reasonable answer, for which I am grateful.

May I ask one last question about the timetable? When the public records of the last few months and this month are released to the public—as no doubt they soon will be, under freedom of information legislation—can we take it that they will show the Home Office to be actively pressing Government colleagues to set up the Human Rights Committee this very month?

Mr. O'Brien

No doubt the proceedings of the Joint Committee will be of great interest to all parliamentarians, and they will be able to find out about those proceedings in the way in which parliamentarians normally ascertain such matters. Certainly we want progress, and I am sure that the Liberal Democrats—in so far as they might be the source of any difficulties in the reaching of agreement between the usual channels—will seek not to be the source of such problems.

As I have said, we intend to look at all the commissions in an holistic way. In view of that, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will feel able to withdraw the motion.

Mr. Hughes

I am sure that you, Mr. Speaker, those on the Conservative Front Bench and the Government will be delighted to hear that—so generous are we at the beginning of the new term, and so trusting of the Minister's good faith on the occasion of his and my first appearance since our return—I am happy to make a once-only offer. I am grateful for the Minister's assurances, and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

Forward to