§ Lord BROCKWAYMy Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government on what grounds Mr. Pranlal Sheth, Mr. Bashir Maan, Mr. Courtney Laws, Mrs. Ann Jehan and Miss Gwen Rickus have not been reappointed to the Commission for Racial Equality.
§ The PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE, HOME OFFICE (Lord Belstead)My Lords, it is usual to make changes on a regular basis in the membership of statutory bodies such as the Commission for Racial Equality. My right honourable friend the Home Secretary considers that the commission's work should be guided by members with experience in many walks of life, and since there had been only two changes in the composition of the commission since it was first appointed in 1977, he decided that the time had come to introduce more new members.
We regret that this decision has been interpreted by some people as a criticism of the contribution made by the retiring members. The Government are grateful to them for the time and effort they have given to the work of the commission in the last three years. My right honourable friend hopes to be in a position to announce the names of new members of the commission in the near future.
§ Lord BROCKWAYMy Lords, is the Minister aware of the deep concern of many of us who pioneered the legislation against racial discrimination in this country at the scepticism which the ethnic 1128 communities now feel about the commission? Will not this be deepened by the dismissal of four African and Asian members and a white supporter of those members? And is not the issue really whether the commission should investigate immigration procedures in this country?
§ Lord BELSTEADMy Lords, I am surprised that the noble Lord should talk about scepticism now as regards the commission. If I may say so, that reflects on members of the commission who have accepted the Secretary of State's invitation to serve for a further term. I am sure the noble Lord will not mind if I remind him that the chairman of the commission has made it clear publicly that, since it was established, the commission as a whole has been critical of Government policies—those of the previous as well as of the present Government—and that the commission will remain independent in the day-to-day conduct of its business. As for the second part of the noble Lord's supplementary question, about investigating immigration procedures, the Home Office were advised that the commission did not have power to undertake such an investigation. This question is now before the courts in friendly proceedings to establish the extent of the commission's powers.
§ Lord AVEBURYMy Lords, is the noble Lord aware that, while it is very welcome to hear him say that the members of the Commission for Racial Equality are free to make criticism of Government policy, it just so happens that the five commissioners who have been sacked were those who favoured a more active role and were most strongly critical of Government policy? Is the Minister further aware that these particular five commissioners were the ones who voted for the commission to undertake an investigation of immigration policies, whereas the other commissioners who have remained in office were those who voted for it not to undertake such an investigation? It therefore looks to many of us outside that this was the approximate reason for their sacking and that the general reason was that they favoured a more active role for the commission.
§ Lord BELSTEADMy Lords, I must put it to the noble Lord that the chairman of the commission has himself categorically 1129 denied what the noble Lord just said, and has made it clear that the commission has taken its decisions and its line in the past as a whole, and I repeat that the commission will remain independent in the day-to-day conduct of its business.
§ Lord FERRIERMy Lords, does my noble friend agree that the noble Lord opposite is correct in using the word "dismissal" as applying to these officers, particularly in the light of the wise reply which my noble friend gave to the original Question?
§ Lord BELSTEADI am grateful to my noble friend for that comment, my Lords. The appointment of those members was not renewed and the reason why their appointment was not renewed was given in my original Answer.
§ Lord ELWYN-JONESMy Lords, will the national ethnic minority organisations be consulted before the successors to those who are no longer, to use a neutral phrase, members of the commission are replaced?
§ Lord BELSTEADMy Lords, as the noble and learned Lord knows, the members of the commission are appointed in an individual capacity and not as representatives, but I give him an assurance that of course my right honourable friend is anxious to ensure that the commission has members drawn from the main ethnic minority groups.
§ Lord BROCKWAYMy Lords, does the Minister appreciate that any scepticism on the part of the non-white communities in this country is due not to the membership of the commission but to its limitations? Announcements are to be made today and I have seen only the short list of those who are to be nominated to the commission. Would the noble Lord confirm that they are all Conservative members of councils or blacks who have important positions utterly unrelated to the ethnic community as a whole? Will he bear in mind that Mr. Lane, the chairman of the commission, after paying warm tribute to those who have been removed, said, as reported in The Times on 4th April:
The first essential is stronger political leadership, with the Government putting into practice their commitment to promoting equality of opportunity"?
§ Lord BELSTEADMy Lords, I am a little surprised that the noble Lord would reach conclusions about a statement which my right honourable friend the Home Secretary has not made, and I think that the noble Lord would wish to wait for anything that my right honourable friend might say on this matter.