Plenary,

Meeting date: Thursday, May 25, 2000

Official Report 664KB pdf

---

Race Relations

Good morning. The first item of business is motion S1M-887 on the Race Relations (Amendment) Bill, with an amendment to that motion. This will be a short debate, and I hope that members will stick rigidly to the time limits. I call Jackie Baillie to move the motion.

I am pleased to open this debate on the Race Relations (Amendment) Bill on behalf of the Executive. This is an important opportunity to put on record the fact that establishing race equality and tackling racial discrimination are fundamental to the Executive's commitment to the promotion of equality of opportunity for all. The proposed changes to the Race Relations Act 1976 that are being considered at Westminster reinforce and extend the Executive's remit to tackle discrimination and to promote race equality. By agreeing to the Executive's motion, this Parliament will send a strong signal of its commitment to race equality and the new framework.

The Executive firmly believes that no institution in Scotland can afford to ignore the findings of the Macpherson inquiry into the murder of Stephen Lawrence and the evidence that proves that racism exists here in Scotland. That is why the Executive set up the race equality advisory forum at the end of last year. The forum's remit is to provide the Executive with advice on a strategy to address broad racial equality issues, to develop action plans to eradicate institutional racism, and to advise on better ways in which to consult people with ethnic minority backgrounds. Its members have been working extremely hard and will report formally to the Executive later this year.

The forum is also working alongside the steering group that is chaired by the Deputy First Minister, which was set up to oversee the implementation of the Executive's action plan in response to the Macpherson report. Together, their work will inform the broad range of activities in hand, to take forward the Executive's commitment to promoting race equality and to tackling institutional racism. I want to place on record the Executive's particular appreciation of the dedication and hard work of the forum, the steering group and the Commission for Racial Equality. Their contribution is proving to be invaluable and, as ever, thought provoking.

We knew that it would not be easy to secure the deep-rooted change that is necessary to eradicate racism and discrimination. However, I am confident that, through the efforts of individuals such as the members of the forum and the steering group, we will continue to move in the right direction and that we will do so—and this is important—in closer partnership with communities.

Our efforts will depend not only on the few with whom we have been able to work in those groups; we are also seeking to develop the Executive's lines of contact with the full range of interests that are dedicated to tackling racism. Vital to that will be work to engage with grass-roots black and ethnic minority interests across Scotland. That is part of the development of the Executive's equality strategy and comes from the work programmes of the forum and the steering group.

I shall say why the Executive considers it appropriate for this Parliament to agree unequivocally to the principles embedded in the Race Relations (Amendment) Bill, the UK legislation that is the subject of today's debate. As I said, the bill makes changes to the Race Relations Act 1976. Members may wish to refer to the Executive memorandum, which provides a useful outline.

The bill's main purposes are: to extend the 1976 act in relation to discrimination and victimisation by public authorities; to place a statutory duty on specific public authorities to promote race equality; to make chief officers of police vicariously liable for acts of racial discrimination by police officers; and to amend an exemption under the 1976 act for acts done for the purpose of safeguarding national security, thus remedying a provision thought to be incompatible with the European convention on human rights.

The UK Government brought forward a number of amendments in committee at the House of Commons. They include a new general duty on specified public authorities to make arrangements to ensure that their functions are carried out with due regard to the need to eliminate unlawful racial discrimination and to promote equality of opportunity and good relations between persons of different racial groups. The wording of the new general duty largely reflects the wording in section 71 of the act that places a similar duty on local authorities only.

The amendments to the 1976 act provide the framework within which the new duty on public authorities to promote race equality will operate. The amendments set out the general duty on public authorities, give ministers the power to make regulations imposing further specific duties to back up that general duty, provide for the CRE to issue codes of practice giving guidance to public authorities on how to fulfil those duties, and provide a compliance and enforcement mechanism giving the CRE the power to issue a compliance notice and, ultimately, apply for a court order.

The new general duty on public authorities to promote race equality will impact on devolved areas of responsibility. The powers in the new section 71(2), as inserted by clause 2 of the bill, fall within the terms of the exception to the equal opportunities reservation in the Scotland Act 1998. The Executive has therefore agreed that, in relation to certain Scottish public authorities, the bill will confer regulation-making powers on Scottish ministers in relation to that general duty. The new power to make regulations imposing specific duties on public authorities is to ensure the better performance by authorities of the new general duty to promote race equality. Much of the detail of how the general duty will operate in practice will depend on the content of the regulations.

Will the minister clarify how far this Parliament is able to put duties on authorities to promote equal opportunities in race relations or any other areas, as there has been some confusion in the Education, Culture and Sport Committee about that?

The Scotland Act 1998 is clear on the powers of the Scottish Parliament in relation to equality of opportunity. The mechanism by which legislation is undertaken is part of the UK-wide framework and that power rests with Westminster. We have the power to promote equal opportunities and to place duties on devolved areas to carry out that promotion. I hope that that gives the clarity that is sought.

There will be consultation between the UK Government and the Scottish Executive on what should go into the regulations. We will contribute to UK discussions and undertake similar discussions with Scottish interests such as the race equality advisory forum and community groups. We see that combined approach as the most effective way of ensuring that, in the implementation of the new arrangements, full account is taken of Scottish circumstances and interests. We will aim to get Scottish solutions tailored to our circumstances within a UK framework of principle, firmly in favour of a UK-wide commitment to delivering on race equality.

The amendments give the CRE the power to issue codes of practice to provide guidance to public authorities on carrying out their new duties. The UK ministers, in deciding whether to approve or reject such codes, will be under a duty to consult Scottish ministers. They will also be required to consult Scottish ministers before the codes are enforced.

The Scottish Executive is keen to ensure that Scotland has a modern and effective framework within which its commitment to promoting race equality can operate. The provisions in the bill offer an early opportunity to reinforce and further promote race equality in Scotland and I therefore welcome this legislation.

I move,

That the Parliament agrees the principles contained in the provisions of the Race Relations (Amendment) Bill including the power to impose duties on public authorities so far as those provisions relate to matters within the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament or confer functions on the Scottish Ministers.

I welcome the opportunity to consider the Race Relations Act 1976, as it is a matter that I have raised in Parliament in previous debates on equalities issues. The Scottish Parliament allows us to debate racism in greater depth in a forum that we have never had before. Across the chamber, there is recognition that we must be united in our determination to tackle racism in Scottish society.

Modern Scotland has a wide diversity of cultures, linguistic and racial, which serve as a source of enrichment in all aspects of our society. Although Scotland has a multicultural population, racial incidents are unfortunately far from uncommon; indeed, the number of them is increasing. The experience of racial harassment and violence is all too often a common experience for those who come from an ethnic minority background.

We have only to consider the statistics of racial incidents recorded by the police here in Scotland to see the nature of the difficulties. In 1988, there were 299 recorded racial incidents. By 1998-99, that figure had increased to 1,271. In the Strathclyde area alone over the past 10 years, the number of racial incidents has increased by two and a half times. Although there are a number of reasons why more racial incidents are being recorded—partly because people are now more likely to come forward to the police to make a complaint—it is undeniable that racism is on the increase in Scotland. This Parliament has much to do in dealing with that problem and we should be prepared to take whatever action is necessary to tackle that rising tide, whether through strategies or legislation.

The Race Relations Act 1976 has played an important role in tackling racism in society. However, we should be mindful of the fact that the act has required amendment for some time. In 1985 and in 1992, the Commission for Racial Equality undertook reviews of the act and stated that it needed to be toughened up. Unfortunately, the Home Secretary at the time—a Conservative Home Secretary—chose to ignore those recommendations.

The CRE undertook another review in April 1998, when it came up with around 50 recommendations on how the act could be improved. Although the Home Secretary accepted a number of those recommendations, he delayed acting on them—mainly as a result of a lack of parliamentary time.

Concern has been expressed about the way in which Westminster has delayed improvement of the Race Relations Act 1976. However, we welcome the fact that the Queen's speech last November indicated that a bill would be brought forward to address the CRE's recommendations and the issues in the Macpherson report into the death of Stephen Lawrence.

The SNP welcomes the amendments to the act, especially the removal of the exception of indirect discrimination. That will ensure that the act will apply in full to all functions of public authorities. That change will make it clear that public authorities must not discriminate directly or indirectly in carrying out their functions.

Although the Race Relations (Amendment) Bill, if passed, would make the Race Relations Act 1976 apply to public authorities, immigration services will still be excluded. In effect, discrimination on the grounds of nationality or ethnicity will not be unlawful when it is carried out with ministerial authorisation or by officials who are acting on immigration laws or rules. The SNP is not alone in being concerned about that. The CRE described the Government's decision to allow that to happen as giving higher priority to immigration control than to good race relations. The Scottish Refugee Council is also concerned. It has stated:

"No matter what, discrimination on grounds of national origin or ethnicity is unlawful."

I regret that the Government in Westminster has chosen to follow that route.

Section 71 of the Race Relations Act 1976 has a particular effect on the situation in Scotland. It places a greater duty on public authorities to promote racial equality and it enables the Secretary of State for Scotland to make regulations that impose specific obligations. Although the general thrust of the section is to be welcomed, members may have serious reservations about the way in which the Government proposes to define and impose duties on public authorities. Public authorities will be required only to "make arrangements". The bill makes no mention of whether a minimum level of arrangements that authorities must put in place will be specified.

Another concern about the section is that it merely enables ministers to make regulations. As ever, ministers will leave and others will take their place; some will choose to exercise that power to make regulations and others will not. The section should place a mandatory responsibility on the minister to act. That view is supported by the CRE, which is concerned that ministers might act purely on the basis of their own political will.

In conclusion, although the SNP welcomes the Race Relations (Amendment) Bill and the impact that it will have in Scotland, we have serious reservations about whether the changes are strong enough. In particular, we do not believe that the decision to exempt immigration services is acceptable.

The SNP believes that equal opportunities policy should be the responsibility of the Scottish Parliament. The Parliament, which has responsibility for tackling racism, is limited by its legislative powers in the matter. Most people accept that, although the problems of discrimination are the same for people throughout the world, particular circumstances in different countries make legislative needs different. The problem of discrimination in Scotland can best be addressed by Scotland's Parliament.

I move amendment S1M-887.1, to insert at end

"but regrets that discrimination on the grounds of nationality or ethnicity will not be unlawful where it is done by Ministerial authorisation or by officials acting within immigration laws or rules."

The Conservatives approve of the basic aims of the bill and we identify with Michael Matheson's comments on racial harmony, but we cannot—regrettably—support his amendment.

The aim of the bill is to eliminate unlawful racial discrimination and to promote equality of opportunity. The Conservatives wish that people in other countries—especially in Africa and Asia—would adopt such objectives. I ask the minister why, if racial discrimination is already unlawful, we need to legislate to underline that fact. It is regrettable that we need to resort to legislation, particularly in relation to the upholders of the law.

The minister referred to the Scottish police, who are covered by schedule 2 to the bill. Bearing in mind the Macpherson report, I note that there is a specific requirement in the bill

"to promote equality of opportunity and good relations between persons of different racial groups."

I will give way to Alex Neil after I have finished this section of my speech.

My impression of the police in Scotland is that they are particularly conscious of their responsibilities in respect of racial harmony. If anything, I believe that there are some signs of positive discrimination in favour of minority groupings. I have evidence in two cases to suggest that, on race issues, senior police officers are treading on glass. There is a perception that, in areas of contention, they are erring on the side of ethnic minority interests. That is dangerous for society's—

No, I promised Alex Neil that I would give way to him, and I have time to take only one intervention.

Phil Gallie asks why we need additional legislation, particularly in relation to law enforcers. I remind him that this issue has arisen because of the failure of law enforcers in London to enforce the existing race relations legislation. It is the view of the chief constable of Strathclyde police that additional legislation is required for the police force and other law enforcement organisations.

That leads me to my next point. I find it strange that Alex Neil should refer to the situation in London when the Scottish Parliament is discussing, in the main, the situation in Scotland and how this bill affects us.

I ask the minister what evidence there is in Scotland of the police or other public authorities acting in ways foreign to the objectives of the Race Relations Act 1976. We recognise that this is a UK bill and that we have little input into it. The objective today is to allow local input into the workings of the resultant act, by permitting the Scottish Executive to make regulations imposing specific duties on specified authorities. We support that, but on the presumption that any such regulations will be laid before the Parliament for scrutiny and approval. It is particularly important that codes of practice prepared by the CRE should be the subject of consultation with the Scottish Executive—just as, in the past, Scottish Office ministers in the UK Parliament were able to have an input into such codes. Given the considerable differences in community make-up across the UK, it may be that approval, rather than consultation, should be sought. I suspect that that would reflect pre-devolution practice.

Will the minister comment on the effect that the bill will have on immigration and asylum applications? What will be the implications for Scotland of perhaps lengthened appeal processes? I note that aspects of discrimination on immigration matters are excluded from the bill, but will the minister assure me that open immigration into the UK, which is currently being encouraged by Labour and SNP members—as I witnessed at a meeting just over a week ago organised by a racial equality group here in Glasgow—will not be a product of this legislation?

The national health service, local government and transport authorities are among the bodies covered by the bill. How will issues such as health treatment, the siting of local authority facilities and bus routes be affected by it? What cost implications would implementation of the bill have for the police, the national health service and local authorities in Scotland?

I note the contents of schedule 2, which would insert new schedule 1A into the 1976 act. Which

"Bodies and other persons subject to general statutory duty"

are excluded, apart from the Security Service, the Intelligence Service and Government Communications Headquarters? If there are none, why could not the schedule have been shortened to refer to "all bodies and other persons except those listed"? That would surely have created a catch-all provision that is in line with the spirit of the bill. I recognise that the minister cannot legislate for a change, but she could, as part of the internal Government consultations process, raise that issue. That, after all, is the role for which the minister is seeking approval today.

The Scottish Liberal Democrats support this extension to existing legislation. We are committed to the principle of equality for all, regardless of race, colour, religion, age, disability, sex, sexual orientation or geographical location. Equality is one of the underpinning principles of this Parliament. Sadly, equality of treatment or opportunity is a distant aspiration for many of our citizens. Not everyone welcomes the increase in multiculturalism in Scotland as an enrichment; many see it as a threat. It is an unpalatable fact that some groups or individuals tap into those fears and exploit them for their own ends.

The battle against inequality and discrimination is a long-running one, which we will have to continue to fight, and fight vigorously, for years to come. It is a battle for hearts and minds, to raise awareness and change attitudes. That cannot be done by legislation alone, but a strong and appropriate legislative framework that demonstrates unequivocally what is unacceptable—and that provides a means of redress through law against the unacceptable—is an essential foundation.

The Liberal Democrats welcome the extension of the Race Relations Act 1976 in relation to public authority functions that were not previously covered. The bill will bring within the scope of the Race Relations Act 1976: the police, for all aspects of criminal investigation, arrest, bail and detention; the Prison Service, for allocation, discipline, punishment and searching of visitors; the immigration authorities, for regulation of entry, detention, asylum decisions, prosecution and deportation; HM Customs and Excise in respect of search, seizure, collection of duty and prosecution, and the criminal justice system in respect of prosecution and probation; local authorities in respect of their enforcement powers over private landlords, street trading, environmental health and child protection; the Health and Safety Executive in respect of inspection and enforcement; and the Inland Revenue in respect of collection and enforcement. The extension of the act will also cover compulsory detention under the Mental Health (Scotland) Act 1984. I apologise for the lengthy list, but it shows the scope of the bill, and the need for it. I am sure that many people will be surprised that those areas were not previously covered by the Race Relations Act 1976.

The extension of the act is the response to recommendations from the Commission for Racial Equality and from the Stephen Lawrence inquiry report. Stephen Lawrence's death was a tragedy and an indictment of our society, but at least the shock and shame has been a catalyst for progress, even if that progress has been painfully slow. Although the bill covers many areas, the CRE was concerned that indirect discrimination was specifically excluded. The Government has indicated that it intends to extend the bill to cover that, and we strongly endorse that move.

In conclusion, the bill is to be welcomed; we support it and believe that it should apply in Scotland. It is to our shame that we need such legislation, but we do, and we need it to be right and comprehensive. We also need to shoulder the responsibility, collectively and as individuals, of opposing racism and all the other ugly manifestations of prejudice and intolerance wherever we encounter them.

If members keep below the four-minute limit, I will be able to get everybody in.

I welcome the fact that we are having this debate, albeit it a short one, because although racial equality is a reserved area in one sense, the ethnic minority communities in Scotland, as well as the Parliament, have a clear interest in the impact of the legislation, particularly on practice in devolved areas.

The Home Secretary is to be congratulated to some extent on his willingness to listen to the critics of the bill. In particular, the CRE should be congratulated on suggesting changes that will make the Race Relations Act 1976 more effective.

It is rather depressing that we are having to strengthen the act. There has been no societal change that makes the act unnecessary. In fact, in some cases, matters have got worse. It is also depressing that people like Stephen Lawrence's family and others are forced to parade their grief in public before any changes are made in Parliament. However, we should not be negative, and we should make the most of the opportunity to ensure that the bill is a tribute to people such as the family of Stephen Lawrence.

If we are to ensure that the bill is effective, some issues will be critical. I would like the Executive to respond to some points; although I do not necessarily expect it to give all the answers today, I will write to the minister with all my concerns.

I have not done much homework on this, so it may be too late to suggest what I am about to suggest. I wondered whether there was still some leeway to ensure that the bill covers core elements of public duty. I am not sure whether that is possible, but it is a concern that regulations can be changed or watered down. I also wondered whether we could rely on the minister to ensure that certain core standards will form part of all regulations and that the Scottish public authorities will be leaders in race equality.

I have to agree with Phil Gallie—something that I do not like to do very often, because it is probably not good for my reputation. However, like Phil, I cannot really understand why there is not a fuller list in schedule 1A or why the list does not include everyone, so that people who wanted exemption had to apply for it. There are some glaring omissions—for example, local enterprise companies are not included, despite the amount of public money that they spend. Of course, it would be impossible to have an exhaustive list or to add new public bodies to it when they were formed, so it would be better to include everyone. The process of applying for exemptions should be transparent, so that we know why bodies have been exempted.

This is a one-hour debate, which does not give us long enough to go into some areas of concern. We have not heard reports on some of the initiatives that have been taken in the Parliament. I hope that there will be an opportunity to do so very soon. The minister is coming to the Equal Opportunities Committee, so we will be able to ask about progress that has been made following the Stephen Lawrence report, but I wonder whether the Parliament will have the opportunity to discuss that progress.

As I said, I will write to the minister. I do not want to sound too negative, and I welcome the fact that we have been able to discuss this subject today. However, I worry that, years from now, following another review, we could still be standing here without anything having really changed. I hope that the minister can, either now or later, answer some of the points that I have made.

I welcome, as do my colleagues, the implementation of at least some of the recommendations of the Macpherson inquiry. As we have said before, equality is no more and no less than justice. That is why I support the SNP amendment. It is bad enough that we have immigration laws that are debated and approved at Westminster, which are clearly racist in conception. However, the Race Relations (Amendment) Bill compounds that by continuing the exemption of immigration officers from charges of racist behaviour.

It is positive that we now recognise that institutionalised racism exists in our country as well as in the rest of the United Kingdom. Scotland, as a growing-up country with its own Parliament, can now make some headway in addressing the problems of intolerance that face many of its people. However, it is perhaps because we are beginning to recognise Scotland's problems that the contradiction between the fine words here and the actions of the Westminster Government is becoming so stark.

Will the member say whether it is her party's policy to have open immigration into the United Kingdom and into Scotland? That seemed to be the impression given by Shona Robison in a public meeting just over a week ago.

We are talking about different issues. Every country has to have immigration policies; in this debate, we are talking about whether it is acceptable for a public officer in our country not to be open to complaints of racist behaviour.

Jim Wallace told the first meeting of the Stephen Lawrence steering group that he wanted the group to deliver real, practical changes in the way in which criminal justice agencies addressed racial issues. Jackie Baillie has identified the need to target institutionalised racism as a priority.

Those are admirable sentiments, but compare them to the reality of how Scotland is obliged to behave by Jack Straw—possibly the most illiberal Home Secretary whom Tony Blair could have appointed. Compare the sentiments expressed in this Parliament with the Home Secretary's policies of forcible dispersion of asylum seekers; forcing asylum seekers to live below poverty level; using vouchers that make them a target for exploitation; and even the regrettable photo opportunity, with people being pulled out of the back of trucks.

It is little wonder that Bill Morris denounced Jack Straw for creating a climate of racial intolerance towards asylum seekers. Straw has created an environment in which the Tories can begin, once more, to play the race card. William Hague's recent rant about a massive influx of bogus asylum seekers hardly embodies the spirit of humanity, yet it could just as well have come from a Home Office press release. Neither Hague nor Straw will let facts get in the way of a good prejudice.

Less than 5 per cent of the world's refugees come to Europe, never mind the UK. In the European Union, the UK ranks ninth in the number of asylum seekers per head of population, nor are most asylum seekers bogus—nearly 60 per cent of applications are granted. Even a regime as intolerant as Jack Straw's has to admit that those cases are deserving. Among the others, there are many whose cases fail for procedural reasons.

When we consider the sentiments that were expressed when our Parliament was opened, it is surely gross hypocrisy to treat potential Scots in the way that we do. This Parliament should, as Jackie Baillie said, send a strong signal to Westminster that—reserved matter or not—that is not on.

We should also send a signal that discrimination is discrimination, no matter who discriminates. The police and immigration service officers have to deal with people in the most traumatic circumstances. The events surrounding the Stephen Lawrence case have created a climate in which it is no longer acceptable for the police to be exempt from race relations legislation.

We in the SNP argue that there is no excuse for the immigration service to be exempt from that legislation. I commend the SNP amendment.

I generally welcome the Executive's statement on the Race Relations (Amendment) Bill.

I will add one point to the debate. Racism is endemic in our society and it is pervasive; it is not safe to assume that it does not exist in any institution.

It is probably rather dangerous to talk about a rising tide of racism at this point. We have endemic racism; in future, there will probably be more and more reporting of racist incidents as we become less tolerant of racism. Therefore, we must be careful about how we present the issue in Parliament, because we should encourage the reporting of racist incidents by ethnic minority groups. That is the way in which to address the problem in the future.

I call Alex Neil, who has two minutes.

I will make two points instead of three.

There is unanimity in the Parliament on the condemnation of racial prejudice in all its ugly formats.

Phil Gallie asked about the cost of implementing the legislation. My answer to that question is very simple: this is one instance in which the price cannot be too high. The cost of not implementing the additional measures and not eradicating any aspect of racial prejudice and hatred from our society is the cost that would be too high—not the cost of implementing the proposals.

I am sorry, but I have only two minutes.

We should not underestimate the problem in Scotland; it would be foolish of us to do so. About 45 per cent of all racially motivated incidents in Scotland relate to the Pakistani community. We need to take initiatives in a whole range of areas, to ensure that prejudice against the Pakistani community in particular is tackled as a matter of priority.

Other forms of racial prejudice are equally deplorable, no matter how numerically insignificant such cases are. It is my party's policy that any racial prejudice against anyone from south of the border is as abhorrent as any other form of racial prejudice, as indeed is any so-called anti-Jock prejudice south of the border. The issue transcends borders, not just between Scotland and England, but between this country—the UK—and every other country. Racism in any form is deplorable.

I have done a lot of work in Romania. The racism there against the 10 per cent of the population who are the real Romans—the gypsies—is as abhorrent as prejudice against the Pakistani community in Scotland. We should not just take initiatives in Scotland, the UK and Europe but, because this is an international issue, adopt a global approach. As well as considering what the bill legislates against, I urge the Executive to produce a series of specific initiatives actively to promote racial harmony in Scotland and elsewhere.

This has been a good debate, in which many good points have been made in an impartial spirit on all sides. We have all picked up a good deal of information from those who have spoken.

To a large extent, the bill concerns public authorities. The experience of many people in ordinary life who deal with public authorities is that it can be like punching jelly—anyone who has to deal with the Department of Social Security, the housing department or the police will know the nature of the institutional scene. Therefore, it is important that we get the attitude as well as the legislation right. As Nora Radcliffe said, the legislation provides a strong background against which to change attitudes and conduct the battle for hearts and minds.

It is important that we do not fall into the trap of allowing the public authorities to talk politically correct language without the spirit coming through in action throughout organisations. There must be as much ownership of the process as possible by the groups that are affected. For example, there should be a reasonable balance of ethnic minorities in the police force.

I am pleased that the bill has been strengthened since it first went before Parliament. It is important to recognise the link between the internal and external aspects of the issue. The SNP amendment may or may not be correct—that is another matter—but it is right to identify the relationship between the question of asylum seekers and the question of internal race relations. What Michael Matheson said about that link was correct.

I have had experience of legal matters concerning the immigration department. One of the main issues was the difficulty in getting from that department answers to telephone calls, replies to letters, or any information about progress on cases. It is hugely important that the Government should introduce mechanisms to improve the situation.

The theme must be partnership. The Liberal Democrats would have liked equal opportunities to be within the scope of the Scottish Parliament. That is not how it worked out. Partnership—whatever the legal definition is—is the way forward. I am encouraged by what the minister said about that this morning.

This issue seems to return to the slogan of the French revolution—liberty, equality and fraternity. Those themes run through this debate and should inspire us to achieve better race relations in this country.

It is appropriate that you are in the chair, Presiding Officer, because you played a leading role against apartheid earlier in your political life. It is our determination and resolve that racism must have no place in the Scotland of today. The Scotland of the 21st century must learn to value the unique contribution that is made by each individual, regardless of background, race or creed.

We are fully committed to a fair and just society in which everyone, whatever their race or ethnic origin, has equal rights. We are therefore fully committed to eradicating racial discrimination. That is why we are glad to support the Commission for Racial Equality, as it works towards the elimination of discrimination and promotes equal opportunities and good relations among people of different racial groups. We believe that it is right that the new statutory duty should be imposed on specific public authorities and that Scottish ministers should be consulted on whether to approve any code of practice prepared by the CRE.

Nobody benefits from racial discrimination. It is manifestly harmful and unjust to those who suffer. I became most aware of it when a bad episode of bullying among the prisoners in Barlinnie prison was reported to me some 10 years ago. Since that time—indeed, almost immediately afterwards—new procedures have been put in place. Racial discrimination is also harmful to Scotland as a whole, because it diminishes all of us and prevents everyone from making their full contribution to the life and health of the nation. It is important to reinforce and value the important part that everybody has to play in our society, wherever they or their ancestors come from. The measures are sensible and just and should be supported.

The debate is welcome. There have been few occasions to discuss this crucial area of race relations. Like Kate MacLean, I hope that we will have the opportunity to debate the issues in more detail and, in particular, to examine the steering group's findings and the Macpherson report. The wishes of the CRE have been granted in part. It said:

"we hope that the Scottish Parliament will have a full debate on the Race Relations (Amendment) Bill otherwise what is the point of the Scottish Parliament".

That is absolutely correct.

We welcome the bill's intention to make it unlawful for a public authority to discriminate directly in carrying out any of its functions, which was a key recommendation of the Macpherson report. Phil Gallie alluded to police officers walking on glass. William Macpherson himself said that the Metropolitan police—I suppose that it could go for any police and right-wing critics—should stop whining and complaining about the report and get on with it. Phil Gallie should perhaps take that advice.

Will the member give way?

I will move on, as I do not have much time.

The message is clear: public authorities must not discriminate directly or indirectly in carrying out any of their functions. The bill gives important new powers to the CRE, which have been covered.

The Executive memorandum states that the UK Government will consult the Executive during the coming months and that the Executive will contribute to the UK discussions. I hope that the Scottish Executive will be prepared to say that there are areas where the UK Government could have done better. Kate MacLean and Phil Gallie referred to the fact that the schedule 1A list does not include some public bodies. The main omission, however, is the exclusion of the immigration service from the provisions of the bill. The meeting that Phil Gallie and I were at, which was well attended and at which Phil had a hard time, was about the fact that immigration policy should not be based on racism and prejudice. I stand by those comments.

The CRE has described the Government's omission as giving a higher priority to immigration control than good race relations. The Scottish Refugee Council is equally concerned about the omission.

I welcome Jackie Baillie's clarification that the Parliament has the ability to place duties on public bodies, because there was confusion about that following Peter Peacock's evidence to the Education, Culture and Sport Committee.

We are all here today because racial incidents are far from uncommon in Scotland and their number is, as Michael Matheson said, increasing. We need action to deal with the situation across all areas of Scottish life. The bill is a start, which is to be welcomed, but unfortunately it does not go far enough. By passing the amendment, we can try to persuade the UK Government to go a stage further by outlawing all discrimination in all public bodies, without exception.

I urge members to support Michael Matheson's amendment.

I am pleased to be able to acknowledge the support from all sides for the cause of race equality. It should be an issue on which we can work together. As many members have acknowledged, Scotland's record on the matter is far from unblemished.

The new Scotland is entitled to strong leadership from its politicians on the issue. We all benefit from Scotland being truly inclusive and actively supportive of multiculturalism and diversity. We all benefit from ensuring that no one should suffer discrimination on the grounds of race, colour or ethnic origin. We all benefit when everyone can achieve their full potential.

The new legislative framework, to which we seek the Parliament's agreement, is an important step change in the interests of Scotland's black and ethnic minority communities, as well as of the whole of Scottish society. The Executive looks forward to working in partnership—as we were invited to do—with the UK Government, the CRE and indeed all interests, to ensure that the commitment to racial equality and tackling discrimination is more firmly rooted across Scottish life.

The strength of equality issues lies in a single UK framework. Equal rights should be indivisible. People have an equal right not to suffer discrimination wherever they live or work in these islands. People want to know their rights and to be able to exercise them. The Race Relations (Amendment) Bill brings the culture of the enforcement of equal opportunities much closer.

Across the UK, we now have a common framework of commitments on equality issues. The bill invites Scotland to take responsibility for delivering on those common commitments. Today's debate is about Scotland's legislators taking responsibility, here in Scotland, for delivering on those commitments. The bill is a step forward and an opportunity to reaffirm not a passive, ritualistic endorsement of the principles of equal opportunities, but a commitment to an active determination to promote race equality. The bill will allow Scottish ministers to make regulations imposing specific duties on certain public authorities.

Let me deal with some of the issues that have arisen in the debate. The SNP began with two issues. The first was whether the order-making powers were robust enough. We believe that they are robust because they have to be tailored to the character of the body concerned. What is right for a large public body might not be right for a small body. The critical protection that people seek is the obligation on ministers to consult the CRE before making an order.

The second issue was immigration, to which I shall return. The decision to maintain a separate stream of legislation for immigration and asylum is essential if we are to retain the flexibility that we need to operate the policies that, during the recent Balkan conflict, allowed some Albanians and Kosovans to come to Britain. Phil Gallie asked whether the bill affects the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 in any way. It does not affect the act directly. However, he raised a point about the speed of processing; one of the aims of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 is quicker processing of claims through the new asylum support directorate, rather than by individual authorities.

Kate MacLean raised several salient points, such as the coverage of public bodies. I am happy to confirm that we are conscious that there are some gaps in the list of public bodies that are subject to the new duty to promote equal opportunities, and Scottish Executive officials are working with officials across the UK to ensure that the list is appropriate. Kate also asked whether there would be new core standards. There will be mandatory consultation with the CRE, to ensure that the duties imposed on each body are appropriate; the Parliament will scrutinise those new duties.

I have a question on the previous point, about the list of public bodies in new schedule 1A, inserted by schedule 2 to the Race Relations (Amendment) Bill. Given what the minister said in respect of Kate MacLean's point, does she not agree that it would be better to remove the list and to list the bodies to be excluded instead? That would make the list all-embracing, so answering that point.

No. It is important to have flexibility. The order-making power will allow new public bodies to be added as we go along, so it is not fixed in time and the coverage is as comprehensive as it needs to be.

I wish to reflect on the contributions in the debate that have dwelled on what is outwith the powers of the Parliament. This amending bill should not be just another constitutional battering ram. I say to the Opposition: yes, let us have scrutiny, but let us have scrutiny on the real merits of the issue, which is what the legislation can let the Parliament do, to advance the cause of racial equality in Scotland.

The debate should not be about what the Parliament cannot do. Every speech that is devoted to what the Parliament cannot do does not allow us to fulfil our role of scrutinising legislation in the way that the Equal Opportunities Committee has sought to do on the matter.

Surely the Parliament has the power of protest.

The more important responsibility of the Parliament is to provide for Scotland proper legislation in the areas for which we take responsibility. Every time we try to turn the chamber into a forum for rhetoric about the separatist cause, we lose the opportunity for the diligence in scrutiny that is falling to the Parliament's committees.

The SNP said that it would make the Parliament work. It should do so in a meaningful sense. Let us not reduce every debate in the Parliament to one long whinge about the SNP's failure to bludgeon the rest of us into support for its constitutional settlement.

Will the member give way?

Will the member give way?

Let me finish.

It has been an harmonious and helpful debate. On every point—

Let me finish.

On every point that has been raised, dealing with the substance of the legislation, the Executive is keen to listen to and work with all parties in the chamber. The bill is about using the framework of UK legislation to create the appropriate framework in Scotland for the Parliament to act and for us to take responsibility. It allows us to tackle race equality in our society with a new determination. I welcome the support from all sides of the chamber for that.

I congratulate all who took part in the debate on sticking so rigidly to the time limit. It was a short debate and we have finished three minutes early, which means that, if Mr Finnie is ready to start ahead of time, we can add three minutes to the rural affairs debate.