Black Soldiers

HC Deb 14 March 1991 vol 187 cc1260-74 2.44 am

Ms. Diane Abbott (Hackney, North and Stoke Newington)

For many months, the nation's imagination has been focused on its armed services. Ever since the outbreak of hostilities in the Gulf, on every news bulletin there has been news film of our troops. As those troops return home from the Gulf, it seems an appropriate time to examine the position of black people in the armed services.

If it is indeed sweet and fitting to die for one's country, there can be no doubt that it is fitting for all our soldiers to be treated equally, both in recruitment and in their career prospects once they are in the armed services. I question whether that is actually the case. The history of black people serving in Britain's armed services goes back a long time. We do not hear much about it in the official history of world war two, but as many as 8,000 West Indians served in the Royal Air Force. Each year, I attend the West Indian ex-service men's Remembrance day service, where we remember the West Indians who died in the service of this country. Of course, the Indian army also played an important role in defeating the Germans and the Japanese.

The current evidence suggests that, far from being treated equally, black people in the armed services are under-represented. There are recurrent and tragic cases of brutal racial assault on black soldiers, which with monotonous regularity force them to leave the armed services. There is also evidence that black people have been kept out of certain regiments.

On the point about under-representation, although black involvement in the armed services has a long history—black air crew, black soldiers, black munitions workers and black forestry workers, who served in this country during the war—sadly, it has always been one of colour bar and segregation. When the war broke out in 1939, black students from Oxford, Cambridge and Newcastle who went to join the officer training corps found themselves banned. In the end, despite much agitation and pressure from the Colonial Office, only a handful of black men gained admission.

As late as 1943, the Royal Navy recruiting regulations stated: Black and coloured boys and any person in whom there is evidence of such parentage are absolutely ineligible for entry unless with special sanction of the Admiralty. That theme ran through the recruitment attitude, both official and unofficial, of the armed services throughout the war.

For years during the 1960s there was a very strict quota limiting the number of black recruits. At the beginning of the 1960s it was 2 per cent., and towards the end it was 4 per cent. Throughout the 1960s, there were some regiments that would not accept any black recruits. That was revealed in a War Office memorandum that was published in newspapers during that decade. The regiments that would officially accept no black recruits include the Household Cavalry, the foot guards, the Highland regiments, the Lowland regiments, the Royal Military police, the intelligence corps and the physical training corps. There was an official quota, and black people were officially excluded from certain regiments.

All that was legally swept away by the Race Relations Act 1968, but I suggest that that history of official segregation and exclusion still casts its shadow over the policies and practices of the armed services today.

When applicants were monitored in 1987, MOD figures showed that black people comprised only 1.6 per cent. of the applicants when black people of the particular age range applying to join the armed services constituted 5.7 per cent. of the population. There is a much lower application rate among young black men and women. Worse, there is a much lower success rate.

There is a perception, which no one has been able to prove one way or the other, that once black people get into the armed services, their chances of promotion are not good. In that regard, I want to quote Scotty Muir, an ex-bugler. He left the armed services because he was disillusioned. He said: I feel strongly about people not getting promoted because of their colour. You can go to Northern Ireland and get killed. You can do just about everything else, but you can't get promoted. Recent research that the MOD commissioned from Peat, Marwick, McLintock revealed that young black people are unwilling to apply to join the armed services because they believe that they would encounter racism. That leads me to my other point, about the recurrent incidents of brutal racist violence meted out to young black people who join the armed services.

The case of Stephen Anderson was in the courts last year. He joined the Devon and Dorset Regiment in 1983, and he was the only black soldier in his platoon. For that he suffered continued abuse. One night he was pulled from his bed at 1.30 am, beaten up and called a nigger. The beatings went on for two years and he finally suffered a nervous breakdown. He had to go on a hunger strike before any action was taken against his tormentors.

To give the House an idea of the closing ranks around that kind of brutality, I want to refer to a television programme entitled "Trooping the Colour" which was broadcast in 1989. A white ex-machine gunner was interviewed on the programme. Preferring to remain anonymous, he described how he had, by chance, seen a particularly brutal assault on a black soldier who received a cracked jaw and ribs and was covered in blood. He was rushed to hospital.

The machine gunner decided to report the soldiers who had carried out the attack to the appropriate authorities, partly to protect himself and his friends—to prevent them from being wrongly accused—and partly because he genuinely believed that that was the right thing to do. For doing that he had, in today's modern Army, to put up with months—which turned into years—of bullying. He was hissed and threatened and in the end he had to leave the Army.

I have spoken to members of the West Indian Ex-Servicemen's Association who have left the British Army in recent years. They say that such brutality is not uncommon, and inevitably young men leave the Army without any redress and with their dreams of serving their country in uniform shattered.

In evidence to the Select Committee on Defence when it examined the matter in 1987, the then Secretary of State for Defence struck a note of quite extraordinary pomposity and complacency: Once people are in the Services, as far as we are concerned they are British service men and we are no longer interested in their racial background. That is a travesty of the truth. The service men who assault people like Stephen Anderson are very interested in racial background. The service men who abuse black young service men, make their lives a misery and drive them out of the armed services are very interested in racial background. Defence Ministers would do young black soldiers a great service if they left behind that kind of hypocrisy and fraudulent colour blindness and instead took seriously the brutality that is being meted out to young black soldiers in the armed services.

Now I come to the exclusion of black soldiers from certain regiments. Newspaper reports show that in 1986 the heir to the throne, Prince Charles, queried the absence of any black guardsmen. The attitude of the Guards on the matter is probably best expressed in a quote that I found in The Daily Telegraph from an anonymous guardsman. He said of the possibility of black guardsmen: It doesn't look right; you don't know where the bearskin ends and the face begins. Young black men were officially kept out of the Household Cavalry, the foot guards and the Highland and Lowland brigades until 1968. It is hard not to suspect that that tradition, although technically and legally a thing of the past, remains in the memory of the people currently responsible for recruiting guardsmen.

Many of the people who are listening or will read this debate will remember Guardsman Richard Stokes, who was one of the first black men, if not the first, to enter the Guards. Who can forget the pictures of him in the newspapers in his uniform, full of pride with his white adoptive parents on one side and his black mother who gave him up for adoption when he was very small on the other? It ought to have been the culmination of his hopes and the beginning of a career that would do credit to him, his family and the British armed forces.

But what happened to Richard Stokes, who entered the armed services at 17 full of innocence and high hopes, only wanting to join what he regarded as a top regiment, was a tragedy. Less than three years after the pictures of him joining the Guards were all over the newspapers he left the Guards in disillusion. He had had to endure the unendurable—Nazi jibes, knife threats, racist taunts. He would enter the canteen and his colleagues would bang their plates all at the same time and make monkey noises. Colleagues of his have described the sustained humiliation and threats of violence that he had to endure throughout what must have seemed three long years in the Guards.

Another young black man who tried to join the Guards was one Khalil Janjua. He again had the same experience. He suffered harassment. He found excrement in his bed. In the end, he could not take the abuse, stress and threats. He ended his Army career waiting on tables. Mike Hermanis was driven out of the Welsh Gaurds by the same combination of abuse and violence. What was official policy until 1968 is still unofficial policy now. Despite everything that Prince Charles and others may hint and say, it is the view of the Guards that that there is no place in the regiment for a black soldier.

I must say at this point, having framed this speech very much in the context of the profile that our armed services have had in the past months, that what happens in the British armed services compares unfavourably with the United States system. Who can imagine the British system producing a Colin Powell, who is the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff of the American armed services? Yet when the Defence Select Committee put to the then Defence Secretary, the right hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Younger), that it might just be possible that the British armed services would benefit from studying how the American armed services handled these matters, he was defensive and said time and again that he was resolutely opposed to any such system. British Defence Ministers seem absolutely certain that they have nothing to learn from the United States military system. But I would say that in those armed services at least it was shown that that man could rise to the top on merit. Who would deny that Colin Powell, in his direction of allied forces and in his presentation of the case to the media, rose to the top absolutely on merit? On the one hand, there is a system in which a black man can rise to the absolute top on absolute merit and, on the other, there is a system in which, regularly and systematically, appalling tales of racism and brutality leak out. Are Ministers really so certain that they have nothing to learn from the American armed services in this matter?

I have quoted the cases of ex-service men and I have referred to well-publicised incidents, some of which ended up as court cases. I am sure that the Minister will make the point that we do not know how many black service men are forced out of the military. We do not know how high they rise or the number of black service men in each regiment. We do not know for certain that they are being kept out of the Guards. We do not know, because the Ministry of Defence has resolutely refused to institute monitoring that would reveal such results.

In 1987, the Select Committee on Defence—not a radical organisation—pressed the idea that, at the very least, the Ministry of Defence should monitor recruitment by regiment so that we could know whether it was true or an assumption that certain regiments were trying to prevent young black men from joining. The Ministry of Defence has resolutely set its face against monitoring recruitment by regiment, or by cap badge as it is called, and against detailed monitoring that would reveal the exact career opportunities for our young black men in the armed services

Instead, we are asked to put our confidence in the protestations of Ministers that the British Army is colour blind. It was not colour blind to the young men whom I have mentioned who were forced out of the services, having had to endure in every case the years of taunts, of brutality and of threats.

Monitoring is the only way in which to prove that certain regiments do not discriminate, and the only way in which black young men, once they join the armed services, can experience fairness and equality, and have the same career chances as young white men. I am sorry to say—the Minister may find this unacceptable—that I am not prepared to put my faith in the well-meaning intentions of Ministers. I and the public want information on which to base our views.

When Ministers say, as the Minister may say tonight, that there are difficulties in monitoring, that it is not really acceptable and has no place in the Army, I must point out—the Select Committee report brought this out—that the Army practised monitoring throughout the 1960s to keep black people out. It kept racial records meticulously throughout the 1960s to ensure that the number of black people coming into the service did not exceed the quotas.

If the armed services practised monitoring in the 1960s to keep black people out, why is it so difficult for them to practise monitoring now to ensure that black people are given a fair chance?

The armed services remain alone among large, public sector employers such as the national health service and the civil service in not having a comprehensive ethnic monitoring system. I do not suggest that keeping figures and number crunching is all, but given the steady stream of distressing cases of brutal assaults on black soldiers and the hearsay evidence that black persons do not have the career chances in our services that white service men have, the way in which Ministers have set their face against proper monitoring by regiment and against comprehensive monitoring suggests complacency about the problem.

In 1944, talking about Britain's armed services, the Colonial Office said: We must keep up the fiction of there being no colour bar. Again in 1944, the War Office said: British troops do not take kindly to being commanded by coloured officers. Further, the presence of coloured officers in a unit in peacetime is apt to be a source of embarrassment. I put it to the Minister that the position now in practice is not much different from what it was 50 years ago. The notion that there is no colour bar in the armed services is a fiction, and the resistance in the armed services to troops being commanded by coloured officers is perhaps just as strong as it was 50 years ago.

May we have monitoring by Government in line with the 1987 report of the Select Committee on Defence, so that we can establish once and for all that certain regiments are not excluding black applicants? Can we monitor promotion systematically to demonstrate that black soldiers in the British Army have the same chance of promotion as white soldiers? We must learn from the American experience. The careers of Colin Powell and dozens of other black American soldiers suggest that the American armed services, perhaps alone among such institutions, have constructed a system in which black and white can compete in genuine equality.

Above all, I ask Ministers to stop pretending that racist violence does not happen in the Army. It is not horse play; it is not teasing. It results in people being hospitalised, and it has driven people in a steady flow out of the armed services.

We learned today that the Government intend to set up a royal commission on our criminal system. Racism experienced by black soldiers in the armed services is so great and reflects so poorly on our society that this is an issue which itself deserves a royal commission. The Ministry of Defence has been told many times what it should do, but it resists blatantly, and meanwhile the Stephen Andersons and dozens of other unknown victims are continuing to suffer.

If black soldiers are good enough to die for Britain, they are good enough to be treated fairly. The test of a society and the test of equality in a society is how its different groups are reflected in the society's institutions. The armed services are one of Britain's institutions; they are one of the pillars of British society. The reports of brutality and racism in the armed services, the blatant absence of black soldiers from some of our most distinguished and celebrated regiments, and the fixed unwillingness of the Ministry of Defence to look at practices in other countries are a blot on Britain's reputation for fairness and equality.

Among the thousands of soldiers who return from the Gulf will be many black soldiers who never thought when they were in the desert risking their lives that perhaps they should not be doing so because Britain was not their country because they were black. They are as British as anyone and I demand for them in the House this evening not special treatment, not positive discrimination, but equality; an equality which I believe, from what I have learnt and heard, and from my own researches, does not exist at this time for our black service men.

There is a sad and tragic history of segregation and racism in the British armed services. In the last years of the 20th century it is time finally to close that chapter.

3.8 am

Dr. John Reid (Motherwell, North)

Despite the lateness of the hour, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms. Abbott) on raising this subject and giving us another opportunity to consider it.

The subject has been debated a number of times, which highlights its importance. It has been put well not only by my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington but, previously, by my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng) and, from the Front Bench, by my hon. Friend the Member for Clackmannan (Mr. O'Neill) and my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers), who has tried to highlight it in the past two years.

My hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington said that, in the past few months, quite naturally, her attention has been riveted on events in the Gulf. We are proud of the efficiency, discipline and prowess of our service men and women who served in the Gulf and of those who have been on active service for about 20 years in Northern Ireland but are sometimes forgotten in the drama of the Arabian peninsula.

When those young men and women risked their lives, no one asked their race, religion, creed or colour. War and the risk of death do not discriminate on grounds of creed or colour. As my hon. Friend said, tremendous interest and concern was expressed about the correctness of the Gulf tactics and strategy of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. There was much less concern, in the drama of the moment, about the fact that he was black; that did not enter into the equation during that period of emergency and drama.

As in war, so it should be in peace, but, unfortunately, that has not always been true in the British Army. Tragically, the facts show that the problem, which I hope is recognised by the Government, remains. The Minister has spoken of recognising the problem, but it is obvious to any objective observer that, despite the efforts that have been made—Labour Members have some criticisms of the speed with which those efforts have been pursued—the ethnic composition of our armed forces does not reflect the ethnic composition of the population.

My hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington reminded us of the long and proud history of black service men and women in the armed forces, and of the less than proud history of discrimination—official or otherwise—in the British armed forces. Tragically, although not officially, that discrimination still exists. As my hon. Friend said, figures drawn from the labour force survey, which are well known, show that only 1.6 per cent. of applicants to all the armed services were from ethnic minorities. That represents less than one third of the proportionate make-up of the 15 to 24 age group from which one would normally expect applications to the armed forces.

The Government are aware of the figures and the problem. That awareness led to the commissioning of the Peat, Marwick, McLintock consultative document entitled "Ethnic Minority Recruitment to the Armed Services". I welcome that initiative, as did Opposition Front-Bench spokesmen at the time.

The report was published in response to a number of disturbing suspicions, but it raised other disturbing points. The most important and the most disturbing was the revelation that those from ethnic minorities were more, not less, likely to expect racial discrimination within the armed forces if they had already had some contact with the services. Expectation of discrimination by the ethnic minorities is therefore based not on fear of the unknown but on precisely the opposite. Expectation of discrimination on the part of ethnic minorities is heightened by familiarity rather than by ignorance of the practices of the armed forces.

Some idea of that experience is conveyed—admittedly in anecdotal fashion—in a recent book by Antony Beevor entitled "Inside the British Army." The author is not, to my knowledge, black, but it is worth repeating what he has to say. He served as an officer in the British Army for a considerable number of years. He has no particular axe to grind, and what he has to say about the issue may interest my hon. Friend: Racial harassment is an equally vexed issue. The Army, which is trying hard to bring in more recruits from ethnic minorities, is deeply embarrassed and angered by the tabloid treatment of the subject: the spectacle of the Sun setting itself up as a champion of racial tolerance sticks in many throats. There the author is referring to the sensationalised reports that always appear whenever cases of bullying or racial discrimination in the Army occur. He then said: Yet senior officers do not like to admit how little can be done. Military life is likely to appeal to teenagers with skinhead prejudices, and one or two vitriolic characters are enough to stir up trouble against a black recruit. Once again, self-appointed guardians of the barrack-block flame think that to chase out blacks is to defend the honour of the regiment. They get away with it because the soldier's code against grassing is almost as strong as the underworld's, and because NCOs and officers often prefer not to acknowledge what is happening. We do not have to agree with all those sentiments, particularly with what would no doubt be regarded as slanderous by many recruits about the skinhead tendencies. Nevertheless, when someone in the author's position goes out of his way to highlight the problem in a book about the British Army, it should be treated seriously.

Interestingly enough, the author goes on to give an example of something that parallels in a small way the fact referred to by my hon. Friend: that during times of emergency few people care to ask about a person's colour or creed: In the Parachute Regiment or the Royal Marines, racial harassment is relatively rare, once again because entrants are judged much more by the way they bear up under the arduous selection procedures. Overt racism is also likely to occur less when there are already a number of coloured soldiers serving in the unit, mainly because other newcomers are not prey to a frightening isolation. If the Army is to send members of ethnic minorities into the Guards, then it must not send in one token figure at a time, doomed to draw all the fire. (Although no figures are available, some officers are certain that the number of black soldiers has declined in the last decade. One Green Jackets officer estimated that nearly 10 per cent. of their soldiers were black in the 1970s). Apart from the Green Jackets and the Parachute Regiment, the only infantry regiments with a noticeable number are south-eastern and Midland regiments, nearly all in the Queen's Division. That is anecdotal evidence, and one does not have to agree with every word in Beevor's book to accept that there is a continuing problem, especially in certain regiments. The Guards are the most continually referred to by objective analysts and by those who have first-hand experience of them.

The problem was most dramatically highlighted in November of last year, when a decision by the Army to deny a black soldier, Private Anderson, any compensation or redress after he had suffered racial abuse was quashed in the High Court. That was an important case, in that it established that the armed forces have no less a duty in cases of racial discrimination than has any other institution in civilian life. Indeed, they may have an even greater responsibility. The Anderson case signalled to members of ethnic minorities outside and inside the armed services that racial discrimination has no place in modern society or in the institutions established and maintained to protect and defend that society and its freedoms.

Some have argued that any institution that reflects society is bound to contain some people who suffer from the prejudices that—tragically—still exist in that society. That must not lessen the need for vigilance and prompt action against those who display such prejudices; because if those prejudices are allowed to grow and feed on themselves, they encourage a vicious circle which can only make the problem worse.

Every act of racial discrimination in the armed forces only encourages the perception of those forces—however wrong it may be—as institutions in which prejudice flourishes. Every strengthening of that perception decreases the likelihood of ethnic minority applications to enlist in the armed forces. In its turn, each decrease in enlistment serves only to isolate members of the ethnic communities already serving, and creates the conditions for further discrimination.

So the vicious circle continues, and we end up with the figures for 1988: only 1.7 per cent. of more than 50,000 applications for the Army came from the ethnic minorities. Only 1.5 per cent. of more than 17,000 applications for the Royal Air Force came from them; and only 1.4 per cent. of more than 21,000 applications to join the Royal Navy came from the same source.

Furthermore, the Minister must know that it is not only a matter of applications. Among the tiny proportion who applied at all, the rate of success in applications from the ethnic minorities was significantly lower—just over 19 per cent., as against more than 28 per cent. for white applications. This matter, which has already been brought to the Minister's attention, deserves further study. We hope that he will discuss it in this debate.

The Government have been unusually silent on a number of issues of late. The Minister has been asked several questions over the past 18 months. To be fair, the crisis, and latterly the hostilities, in the Golf may well have taken priority over those questions. That is perfectly understandable. However, as the Peat, Marwick, McLintock report made plain, the services must not only do something about the problem: they must be seen to he doing something about fostering applications from and enlistment by the ethnic minorities.

That report is often referred to, so perhaps it is worth seeing that comment in its context and looking at some of the recommendations in the report. About its contention that the armed forces must be seen to be doing something, the report said: With regard specifically to the ethnic minority community, it is the poor image of the Services on racial issues which is the single most important reason for low application rates. However, our research does suggest that there is scope to alter perceptions of the Services, particularly in relation to other employers. To achieve this change in perceptions the Services must be seen to be doing something. The external strategy must be complemented by a willingness to show the public what is being done in the internal strategy; recommended changes to internal procedures cannot be carried out behind closed doors—they must be seen to be believed. It is important and urgent that that perception among ethnic minorities of the armed forces of the Crown is changed and changed rapidly, because if it is allowed to grow, it will inevitably become an insurmountable problem.

I have a parallel case, in which the circumstances are. I admit, different. It shows that, on one ethnic minority in one part of this kingdom, the pressure not to join the armed forces is even greater, often because it is backed by bullets. It is a tragedy that, whereas 20 per cent. of those in the Ulster Defence Regiment in the early 1970s were Roman Catholics, now only 3 per cent. are. That case is not a close parallel with the issue that we are debating, but I use it to show the vicious circle that is created if we allow to continue the perception that the armed forces tolerate or even foster within their ranks elements that perpetrate either racial harassment or racial discrimination and do not deal with it speedily and effectively.

The Peat, Marwick, McLintock report suggested a number of possible courses of action. First, for one group among the ethnic minorities—those for whom a career in the armed forces is not even a considered option—it suggested that the Government should consider changing perceptions of the services. It said: Such an objection will be achieved by means of a long term image building strategy targeted at young people". That does not mean a superficial glossy approach. It means that there must be positive thinking within the services, not only about the virtues of the recruitment, enlistment and promotion of members of the ethnic minorities but about how that might be presented in a convincing fashion. It will convince the ethnic minorities only if it is genuine.

The report makes a series of other recommendations. I hope that the Minister will be able to tell us—the Gulf war notwithstanding—how far the Government have got not only in considering them but implementing them. For instance, so as to address perceptions of racism in the services, it is suggested that the purpose of such a campaign would be to show a more positive side of the experiences of ethnic minority service personnel.

There are always risks in such a strategy. A few years ago, it became necessary to have a more positive image of women in the services. That campaign walked the tightrope between the widely held view outside that every woman who entered the services was a butch lesbian and presenting the image of women inside the armed forces in such a way that the forces could not be accused of sexism.

We understand that such issues have to be treated with considerable sensitivity, but they must be taken head on and dealt with.

We believe that the report was right when it stated that the services have considered what to do in the long term in allaying the fears of ethnic minority parents. It was recommended that advertisements in the ethnic minority press should be aimed specifically at parents. It was said that that would be an appropriate way to start the procedure. An extremely important recommendation involved the training of trainers and of recruiters. I hope that the Minister will respond to all these matters so that we may learn what advances, if any, have been made.

We want to know whether additional training will be given to recruitment officers on the recruitment of members of the ethnic minorities. Will recruitment advertising be reorganised so that it presents a more attractive and more positive image to members of the ethnic minorities? Above all, what concrete steps are the Government taking to deal with racism within the armed forces? These questions need to be answered because the moral issues that are involved are sufficient grounds for taking speedy and effective action to deal with the problem that has already been identified.

Even if the grounds of principle were not sufficient—I believe that they are—practical considerations such as undermanning and future recruitment are in themselves sufficient to compel any responsible Government to take action. We pride ourselves on being a multicultural and diverse society whose very diversity enriches society as a whole. We should expect no less from the armed forces, which we ask to protect our society.

3.31 am

The Minister of State for the Armed Forces (Mr. Archie Hamilton)

It has been an interesting debate. I am glad that the hon. Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms. Abbott) has presented me with the opportunity of making clear the Government's position on members of the ethnic minorities within the armed forces.

The hon. Lady referred to the United States armed forces and their position on members of ethnic minorities. As I am sure she knows, they have a policy of positive discrimination for minority groups, including women. I think that she accepts that positive discrimination conflicts with the principle of equal opportunities. It could be said that positive discrimination is illegal under our race relations legislation. That does not stop the encouragement of under-represented groups, however, and we are doing everything that we can in the Ministry of Defence to encourage members of the ethnic minorities to come forward.

The hon. Lady talked about the bullying of certain individuals. I am sure that she knows that there were problems of bullying in the armed forces in the past. They were problems which had to be dealt with firmly down the chain of command. The cases that come to mind did not involve the bullying of members of ethnic minoritiesblacks—within the armed forces. White soldiers—one presumes the less adequate ones—were hounded by their comrades. We have been dealing with the problem and stamping it out. There is a tendency in regimental life for certain individuals to be picked upon. It is not exclusively a matter of whites picking on blacks, and, as I have said, we have been taking measures to ensure that bullying does not happen.

The hon. Member for Motherwell, North (Dr. Reid) made the point, which has recently been brought home to us strongly, that war does not discriminate and that when it comes to death and injury, there is no colour bar. It was certainly brought home to me when I visited Woolwich hospital recently and saw some of the injured. There was one young black man from the Royal Regiment of Fusiliers. He was from one of the Warrior vehicles which was attacked. As the House knows, a number of people died in that attack and others were injured.

The hon. Member for Motherwell, North quoted from a book. I accept that he had reservations about the description of the skinhead element within the armed forces. When we saw members of the armed forces on television recently in the Gulf coverage, there was no evidence of a skinhead element. People were full of admiration for all ranks, who showed themselves to be extremely professional, reserved and controlled. The description of "skinhead" would have conflicted totally with the impression that the British people got of our very professional armed forces. I think that the public generally looked on them with pride.

I welcome the opportunity to set out the Government's policies on ethnic minorities in the armed forces. We firmly support the principle of equal opportunities for ethnic minorities and have taken steps in many areas to put that principle into practice.

As the House may be aware, the armed services are subject to the Race Relations Act 1976. They are fully integrated, non-discriminatory organisations, and no form of racial discrimination is tolerated in either recruitment or subsequent employment in the armed services. Any member of the armed services who feels that he or she has been wronged in any way has the right to submit a complaint under the redress of grievance procedures provided for in the services discipline Acts. I assure the House that all such complaints are taken very seriously and are thoroughly investigated. If complaints are proven, appropriate action will be taken against those involved.

In April 1987, we introduced a system of monitoring the ethnic origins of all formal applicants and entrants to the armed forces. The results of the first year of ethnic monitoring indicated that there was significant under-representation of ethnic minorities among the applicants to the services. The statistics were mentioned by the hon. Lady and by the hon. Member for Motherwell, North. Overall, the ethnic minorities amounted to only 1.6 per cent. of applicants, whereas estimates from the labour force survey indicated that they formed some 5.6 per cent. of the total Great Britain population in the 15 to 24 age group, from which most applicants to join the services are drawn. The proportion of entrants to the armed services from the ethnic minorities was 1.1 per cent., showing that the success rate of ethnic minority applicants was lower than that for white applicants.

The armed forces share the same problem as the police, to whom the hon. Lady referred. The Metropolitan police find that the number coming forward in the metropolitan area is about 3 per cent., against a total estimated minority population in the London area of 14 per cent., so there seems to be a difficulty in the police as well as in the armed forces.

We were very concerned that the ethnic minorities were under-represented among applicants and entrants to the armed services. In order to help us to improve the position, we commissioned a study by independent consultants into ethnic minority recruitment to the services. The study was mentioned by the hon. Lady and by the hon. Gentleman. I informed the House of the outcome of the study in January 1990, and I made clear at the time that we had accepted all but two of the consultants' 23 recommendations.

Although the consultants found that the attitudes of young people from the ethnic minorities towards employment were not markedly different from those of their white counterparts, they were less likely to consider a career in the armed services. There were a number of reasons but, regrettably, the fear of encountering racial discrimination was cited in many cases.

Clearly, action was needed to improve the image of the armed forces as a career among young people from the ethnic minorities, and many of the consultants' recommendations were directed to that aim. A central feature of their proposals was to give positive encouragement to applications from members of the ethnic minorities. To project a more welcoming image in our recruiting literature and advertisements, we have improved the wording of our equal opportunities statements and have increased the representation of ethnic minority service personnel in our recruiting and advertising literature.

The training courses for recruiting staff now include a session devoted entirely to ethnic minority recruiting. The objectives of those sessions are to promote a more positive attitude towards ethnic minority recruiting, to increase the recruiters' knowledge and awareness of the ethnic minorities by discussing the various cultures, customs and religions, and to act as a forum for discussing problems relating to ethnic minority recruiting that the recruiters may have encountered.

A number of initiatives have been taken to develop contacts with ethnic minority communities. Presentations have been given to ethnic minority community and religious leaders. The Army, in conjunction with the north-east London college, is developing a course which aims to orientate candidates to the Army and improve their chances of passing the necessary tests and interviews. The Army is also taking part in a joint initiative with the Department of Trade and Industry to identify potential candidates and train them up to Army entrance standards.

The consultants found our selection procedures thorough and objective, and fully in conformity with the code of practice of the Commission for Racial Equality—but they recommended that we carry out a more detailed form of ethnic monitoring to help identify any special problems encountered during the selection process. This we are now doing.

We allocated some £600,000 specifically to ethnic minority recruitment in the current financial year. Those funds have been used by the Navy and the Army to purchase mobile career information offices which will be used in areas of high ethnic minority population. They have also been used to advertise in the ethnic minority press, and to produce recruiting leaflets in ethnic minority languages in order to explain the benefits of a service career to the parents of potential recruits. We shall again be allocating funds to ethnic minority recruitment in the next financial year.

The consultants emphasised that a dramatic increase in the number of recruits from the ethnic minorities could not be expected in the short term. We appreciate that it will take a sustained effort on our part, over many years, to achieve a significant increase in ethnic minority applications, but the initiatives that I have described have already done a great deal to start that process moving.

We only monitor the ethnic origins of applicants to the armed forces. That is an anonymous, self-classification system. We do not keep records of the ethnic origins of serving personnel by rank or otherwise. Promotion is by merit regardless of race.

The hon. Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington said that there should be more monitoring of those already in the services. I am sure that she agrees that that would have to be done on a voluntary basis, and one might find that service men and women were not prepared to describe their colour or other characteristics.

Ms. Abbott

I take the hon. Gentleman's point, but in respect of monitoring by regiment, the Select Committee felt strongly that the only way to prove that the Guards were not discriminating was to monitor by cap badge

Mr. Hamilton

The result is that certain regiments would then be picked upon, and so forth. The difficulty there was mentioned by the hon. Member for Motherwell, North. We want significant numbers of representatives of ethnic minorities going into the brigade of Guards together. It must be very difficult for individuals who end up in a regiment of the brigade. It would be better if we could organise it so that, rather than a lone person, groups went through together so that they could give support to each other.

One of the recommendations of the consultants' report that we did not accept was that ethnic minorities should be guided towards regiments where there were other ethnic minorities already. On the whole, we felt that that was difficult to achieve because we do not know where the numbers are. I suspect that there is, de facto, a tendency for the home county regiments—the Queen's Division, and so on—to have a higher percentage of blacks than other regiments might have, and I suspect that that gives a certain amount of reassurance to those who then join those regiments.

I share the view of the hon. Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington about how unsatisfactory the position of the brigade of Guards is. On the other hand, there are great difficulties for people who are in the van of any movement to increase ethnic minority representation in the Household Division

Dr. Reid

Perhaps I may ask the Minister for clarifications as I think that I agree with what I think he said first—that there are dangers, or at least discomforts and extra stresses, involved in sending isolated people from ethnic minorities to pioneer in particular regiments. I then understood the Minister to say that he also discounted sending them to regiments where there were already a number of members of the ethnic minorities. So where does that leave us? Is the sending of groups of members of ethnic minorities into regiments where there is not a large presence being actively considered?

Mr. Hamilton

Returning to the consultants' recommendations, we did not accept that ethnic minorities should be directed towards regiments which already had a number of blacks within the ranks as we did not know which regiments had. Having said that, what happens de facto is that members of the Queen's Division, for instance, recruit from areas around London where the black population is higher than in other parts of the country, so I suspect that blacks end up going to regiments where there are already a number of them and that is the way it maps out. That is the way it happens naturally, but we are not in a position to know precisely what the numbers are in each regiment.

That brings me back to the matter that I was discussing with the hon. Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington. I am not sure that even if one carried out a voluntary census, throughout the ranks of the armed forces, one would get a satisfactory result. If it were done on a voluntary basis, it would depend on people filling in forms, and saying whether they regarded themselves as black, white or whatever.

Ms. Abbott

The Minister is very tall—is he, by any chance, an ex-Guards officer?

Mr. Hamilton

Yes, I certainly am. As I said to the hon. Lady earlier, I am not at all satisfied with the position in the brigade of Guards now. On the other hand, there are great difficulties associated with changing that situation. As I said earlier, in an ideal world—I am not certain in my own mind how one would organise this—we ought to be thinking in terms of a number of blacks going through the training process together, into a brigade of Guards regiment, because it must be hard for individuals. I shall deal with Guardsman Stokes later, if I may.

We have taken the view that in-service monitoring would be damaging and racially divisive among the close-knit communities of the armed forces. The service community is unique in a number of ways, and the practices of other employers are not necessarily relevant; furthermore, there is no evidence of support for ethnic monitoring among ethnic minority service personnel themselves. Those interviewed by the consultants during their study into ethnic minority recruitment were opposed to in-service monitoring, and as a consequence the consultants did not recommend it.

The hon. Lady mentioned the case of Stephen Anderson. Following Lord Justice Taylor's judgment last November, a rehearing of the case is now in hand. A board of inquiry has investigated all the facts relevant to the case, and is expected to report soon. The Army Board will then reconsider the case, taking full account of both the judgment and the board of inquiry report. All factors will be taken into account, and full consideration will be given to the issue of compensation. We are currently considering what changes may be necessary to service procedures for handling redress-of-grievance cases, in the light of Lord Justice Taylor's judgment. No decision has yet been made.

The hon. Lady also mentioned the case of Guardsman Stokes. I find this slightly confusing. The hon. Lady said that Guardsman Stokes was a credit to his family, and indeed he was. He was also a good and enthusiastic soldier and a keen athlete, and he was very well liked in his regiment. The Army would have been delighted if he had decided to sign on for further service, but many soldiers decide to leave after completing a three-year engagement, and that is what Stokes did. Although he was encouraged to reconsider his decision and stay for a further three years, the decision to leave was his alone.

It is important to note that Stokes made no complaint about racial abuse at any time during his service, nor—notwithstanding stories in the press—did he subsequently lodge a formal complaint with the Army authorities. Any such complaint would, of course, be investigated. If there was any question of racial abuse against Stokes, which is what the hon. Lady is now claiming, he has let down all his black colleagues in the armed forces by not registering a complaint. If he wants such complaints to be investigated, he should present them. If he does nothing, nothing can possibly be done to help him, or others who may be suffering from racial abuse. He was popular in his regiment and, as I have said, I am a bit confused about the case—if there was racial abuse, why have we not heard about it before?

It was also suggested that Guardsman Stokes was not allowed to go on a physical training course. He thought that that was evidence of discrimination against him. However, he became eligible to go on the course during the last year of what he had decided would be a three-year term of service. Given the expense involved, the Army is on the whole somewhat reluctant to train people who do not intend to stay in the Army afterwards. By that time, Guardsman Stokes had made it clear that he was in for only three years. If he had said that he would like to stay for six years, the Army would have been more than happy to send him on the course.

It would be naive to suggest that racial prejudice does not exist in the armed forces—just as it does, unfortunately, in other areas of our society. I can assure the House, however, that the services view acts of racial discrimination as intolerable and have worked hard to eliminate such behaviour wherever it occurs. It is important to recognise that the efficiency and effectiveness of the armed forces are founded on teamwork. The trust of each member of the team in his comrades' abilities, loyalty and friendship is vital. Racism, whether institutional or individual, can have no place in the service environment and I join the hon. Lady in condemning it utterly.

I take this opportunity to pay tribute to all the personnel from the ethnic minorities who, with other members of the armed services during the operation to liberate Kuwait, displayed the high standards and professionalism that we have come to expect from the British armed forces.

I hope that I have demonstrated tonight that we are working hard to increase the numbers of recruits from the ethnic minorities to the services. I know that they will be offered full and satisfying careers in a profession where individuals are judged by their performance and not by the colour of their skin.