Why the honours list is guilty of the sin of omission

The new year's honours list merits a browse. Seldom am I able to recognise a friend or associate in the list of awards. Being a republican and an anti-colonialist by instinct, I bring a certain scepticism to the Order of the British Empire and the like. Even so, awards continue to be bestowed on many from the Caribbean Islands. Only Trinidadians and Guyanese are exempt, as both states are republics.

Andy Roberts and Vivian Richards, two of the finest cricketers of our time, received the OBE some time ago, and Garfield Sobers is now Sir Garfield. These have tempered my scepticism - as has the honour bestowed on my friend and colleague Trevor Phillips this year. Trevor was awarded an OBE for his work in the arts and broadcasting and his commitment to public service. I suppose his work on the Windrush series finally convinced those in authority that he is worth a medal.

The Order of the British Empire is a rather strange honour. The sun has set and Gandhi, Nkrumah and Manley Snr brought the curtain down over the empire. Nothing is left of it in the Caribbean - apart from Monserrat, with a population of 4,000, and Anguilla with about the same. Still, if the likes of T Phillips are now honoured with an OBE, we should be thankful for small mercies.

And yet, and yet . . . I find it puzzling, incomprehensible even, that the Lawrences, Neville and Doreen, have been omitted from the honours list. Let's compare their case with that of Peter Imbert, once commissioner of the Metropolitan Police. He is now Sir Peter. He presided over a police force in which racialist attitudes festered and were left largely untouched. Under his regime the detective agencies within the Met degenerated into an appalling state. Old practices were allowed to ossify and no imaginative solutions were offered. Yet he emerges from the new year's honours list smelling of roses.

Doreen and Neville Lawrence, in contrast, have contributed immensely to the improvement of policing in the Met. I cannot think of any civilians in the past 50 years who have uncovered for all to see the weakness of modern policing as have the Lawrences. To say their work has revealed the extent of racism in the Met is to circumscribe their achievements. They have brought to our attention the incontestable fact that the tradition of good, even excellent detective work had all but disappeared in the Met. They have done so without creating public disorder which they could easily have mobilised. They have managed to do so without making it difficult for the police to admit their wrongs and to put them right.

Their approach to the leadership of the black community has been temperate enough to allow orderly change to proceed. It would have been easier to rabble rouse, easier to whip up anger and hatred and so reduce parts of London to ashes as was the case in 1981. In short they have rendered the state a great service. The Lawrences demanded justice in the finest of liberal traditions and controlled the mass of angry young blacks who have demonstrated their ability to fight fire with fire. Yet Neville and Doreen have not been honoured: perhaps criticism of state institutions still draws the hostility of those who rule and govern.

But there is more to the Lawrence question than mere honours. Wherever I go I am accosted on the street by black people who wish to know whether the inquiry will order the arrest and prosecution of Stephen's murderers. I have had to explain that legally it is not on the cards and I have had to make it clear that even his murderers must benefit from the laws of the land. This is an extremely bitter pill to swallow. What then? I am not sure whether the commission of inquiry is restricted in its terms of reference from recommending compensation. Even if it is, nothing prevents the learned judge from extending his brief. The Home Secretary, Jack Straw, will not be bound by such a recommendation but it will be impossible for him to ignore it. Five million pounds, I say.

Darcus Howe is an outspoken writer, broadcaster and social commentator. His TV work includes ‘White Tribe’ in which he put Anglo-Saxon Britain under the spotlight. He also fronted a series called Devil’s Advocate.

This article first appeared in the 08 January 1999 issue of the New Statesman, Stuff the millennium

Photo: Getty Images
Show Hide image

When will the government take action to tackle the plight of circus animals?

Britain is lagging behind the rest of the world - and innocent animals are paying the price. 

It has been more than a year since the Prime Minister reiterated his commitment to passing legislation to impose a ban on the suffering of circus animals in England and Wales. How long does it take to get something done in Parliament?

I was an MP for more than two decades, so that’s a rhetorical question. I’m well aware that important issues like this one can drag on, but the continued lack of action to help stop the suffering of animals in circuses is indefensible.

Although the vast majority of the British public doesn’t want wild animals used in circuses (a public consultation on the issue found that more than 94 per cent of the public wanted to see a ban implemented and the Prime Minister promised to prohibit the practice by January 2015, no government bill on this issue was introduced during the last parliament.

A private member’s bill, introduced in 2013, was repeatedly blocked in the House of Commons by three MPs, so it needs a government bill to be laid if we are to have any hope of seeing this practice banned.

This colossal waste of time shames Britain, while all around the world, governments have been taking decisive action to stop the abuse of wild animals in circuses. Just last month, Catalonia’s Parliament overwhelmingly voted to ban it. While our own lawmakers dragged their feet, the Netherlands approved a ban that comes into effect later this year, as did Malta and Mexico. Ringling Bros. and Barnum & Bailey Circus, North America’s longest-running circus, has pledged to retire all the elephants it uses by 2018. Even in Iran, a country with precious few animal-welfare laws, 14 states have banned this archaic form of entertainment. Are we really lagging behind Iran?

The writing has long been on the wall. Only two English circuses are still clinging to this antiquated tradition of using wild animals, so implementing a ban would have very little bearing on businesses operating in England and Wales. But it would have a very positive impact on the animals still being exploited.

Every day that this legislation is delayed is another one of misery for the large wild animals, including tigers, being hauled around the country in circus wagons. Existing in cramped cages and denied everything that gives their lives meaning, animals become lethargic and depressed. Their spirits broken, many develop neurotic and abnormal behaviour, such as biting the bars of their cages and constantly pacing. It’s little wonder that such tormented creatures die far short of their natural life spans.

Watching a tiger jump through a fiery hoop may be entertaining to some, but we should all be aware of what it entails for the animal. UK laws require that animals be provided with a good quality of life, but the cruelty inherent in confining big, wild animals, who would roam miles in the wild, to small, cramped spaces and forcing them to engage in unnatural and confusing spectacles makes that impossible in circuses.

Those who agree with me can join PETA’s campaign to urge government to listen to the public and give such animals a chance to live as nature intended.


The Right Honourable Ann Widdecombe was an MP for 23 years and served as Shadow Home Secretary. She is a novelist, documentary maker and newspaper columnist.