§ Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Jane Kennedy.]
10.12 pm§ Ms Diane Abbott (Hackney, North and Stoke Newington)In the past few days, we have read in the newspapers of a particularly sad case of a black marine, Mark Parchment, who was subjected to the most horrifying racial abuse and violence in the marines.
Among other things, he was subjected to a special initiation for "niggers", which involved being soaked with a bucket of urine, attacked and having his genitals shaved. He was made to carry a spear on parade at all times and he was routinely taunted and assaulted.
Such episodes of racial abuse and violence in the armed forces are peculiarly tragic because in all cases, they occur with young men who have more than the normal sense of patriotism and of belonging to Britain. It seems peculiarly tragic that young men who really believe that they are British and want to serve their country are being treated in that way. Sadly, the Mark Parchment case is not the only one; it is but one of a series of sad cases to which I wish to draw the attention of the House tonight.
Black and Asian involvement in the armed forces is not new. The black and Asian peoples have had a relationship with the British armed forces going back to the 18th century. During the French revolutionary wars, locally recruited black regiments were first raised in the West Indies. In 1914–18, the Indian army served with distinction on the western front, and by the time of the 1939-45 war it had grown to 2.5 million men.
Thousands of West Indians—as many as 8,000—served with some distinction in the Royal Air Force. Along with other black Britons of my generation, I am often saddened that when this country remembers those who fought and died in the second world war, the contribution of West Indians and Asians is sometimes forgotten. Those people came and fought and died for this country, because they believed that they were citizens of the empire, serving king and country. It is important to remember their contribution.
Sadly, despite that history of centuries of patriotism and commitment to this country and its armed forces, the Army has a history of institutional racism and of operating quotas and exclusions. As late as 1961, the War Office had a 2 per cent. quota on black recruiting; and as late as 1964, it formally banned black and Asian soldiers from the Guards, the Household Cavalry, Scottish regiments and other supporting organisations, including the military police. In 1967, the Army was still operating a formal quota.
In 1989, across the Atlantic in the United States, the Americans appointed General Colin Powell, the child of West Indian immigrants, as head of their joint chiefs of staff. No one, even Conservative Members, who are quick to talk of tokenism and positive discrimination, would argue that General Colin Powell did not serve his country with distinction.
What were the British armed forces doing during that period? Their progress towards even the basics of racial equality was painfully slow. It is important to remind the House that the Commission for Racial Equality first took 1247 up with the military the issue of racism in the armed forces 17 years ago. Throughout the 1980s and 1990s, the British armed forces have spent their time in denial of the problem.
As late as 1990, the then Under-Secretary, Lord Arran, was saying that the armed services had done all that they could to stamp out racism. Tell that to Richard Stokes, who was desperately proud in 1990 to be the first black man to join the Household Cavalry in its entire history: a history, until the 1960s, of a formal ban on black men. He was driven out by hate mail, racial abuse and violence.
Tell that to Jacob Malcolm, who in 1991 was barred from the Household Cavalry because of his colour. Tell it to Stephen Anderson, another black man, who in 1991 was awarded damages for years of racial abuse. Tell it to Mark Campbell, who was the first black man in the Guards. In 1994, he was driven out by the taunts of "nigger", the abuse, the violence and the bed soaked in human urine.
In 1994 again, Geoffrey McKay was awarded damages by the armed forces. He was one of the brightest recruits in basic training, but on his very first parade his sergeant said to the rest of the assembled troops, "We've got a nigger in the troop, lads." Inevitably, like the others I have mentioned, he was driven out by abuse and violence. Eventually, the Army had to pay damages. With such a history of violence, abuse and racism, it is no surprise that two thirds of black and Asian young people—even those who have joined service cadet corps—believe that there is racism in the armed forces.
Today, black and Asian candidates are a third less successful than white candidates. That is a curious statistic. Only 1 per cent. of all black and Asian people are in the armed forces, compared with 5 per cent. in the civil service and 6 per cent. in the population as a whole. Only a handful of black and Asian people are above the rank of colonel. It seems to me very sad that the armed forces have continued to deny the existence of racism in the services and have had to be painfully dragged into the 20th century under the threat of a formal investigation by the CRE.
In the autumn last year, the armed forces launched a big initiative to recruit more ethnic minorities, bring some of their personnel practices up to modern-day standards and implement some measure of ethnic monitoring. It is now important that the Government monitor that process very carefully. It has taken the armed forces 17 years to get to such a stage. We hear all the time about the difficulties of recruiting suitable people to the services, yet, despite a potential pool of recruits in our big cities and communities, black and Asian young men and women are so painfully under-represented in the armed forces.
I am talking about people such as Richard Stokes who, as I said, was the first black man to join the Household Cavalry. I am talking about people such as Geoffrey McKay—and Solomon Raza, who was abused and beaten on a daily basis because his father was a Pakistani. Eventually, one of the beatings put him in hospital with a ruptured kidney and he had to leave the service. Many bright, idealistic young black and Asian men had to be terrorised, abused and brutalised before the armed services reached the standards of basic personnel practice, number-taking and monitoring that we find in any modern business.
1248 Black and Asian people in the Indian subcontinent, Africa and the Caribbean have a history of loyalty to the British Crown which goes back centuries. They want to serve their country, but they are being kept out—I believe—partly through fear following well-documented cases of abuse and maltreatment. The black and Asian community and the wider community want not just policies on paper, a verbal commitment and lip service to be paid to the issue from Ministers and the armed forces, but real commitment, and a line drawn beneath the history of the issue. They want the armed forces to reach out to young black and Asian people to say, "You are welcome, and once you are in the services, you will be treated as equals." Then, the brutality and humiliation suffered by the Richard Stokes, Mark Campbells, Stephen Andersons, Geoffrey McKays, Solomon Razas and Mark Parchments of the world will not have been in vain.
§ The Minister for the Armed Forces (Dr. John Reid)I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) for securing this debate. It provides me with an opportunity to reiterate clearly the Government's commitment to encouraging racial equality in the armed forces. In a vignette of the history of the British armed forces, she referred to the honourable, in many cases glorious, role of comrades in arms in the British Army who came from Asia and Africa. She did well to remind us of that.
In supporting that testimony, I wish to add a personal note. My father lost his oldest and youngest brothers in the second world war in what was probably the most glorious hours of the British armed forces when they stood alone against the most poisonous regime ever to emanate from Europe and possibly the globe—the Nazi regime. The poison at the centre of that regime was racism. The eradication of any element of racism inside our armed forces is compelled not only by the history of the black and Asian community but by the history of the whole of the British armed forces and the sacrifices that they have made.
The Government's commitment stems as much from what will be good for the operational effectiveness of the armed forces as from the inherent laudability of the ideal. Armed forces that better represent the society that they exist to defend will be better able to meet the challenges of the 21st century.
Over many years, the armed forces have not enjoyed a good reputation among members of ethnic minority communities. I understand why that has been so. But I, the Secretary of State for Defence and the armed forces do not accept that that perception or experience of reality should be allowed to continue. There have been, as we have heard from my hon. Friend, a number of highly publicised instances across all three services of unacceptable behaviour towards non-white personnel. Over the years, such events, however isolated they may be as a proportion of the personnel in the armed forces, have done immense harm to the image of the armed forces among the black and Asian communities. They ensured that we face an uphill struggle in persuading those from ethnic minority families that they can have a worthwhile career in the services. Although there are few such incidents, that in no way diminishes their seriousness. One act of racism proven to have taken place in the British armed forces is too many.
1249 Hon. Members will recall the severe criticisms mentioned by my hon. Friend made by the Commission for Racial Equality, which conducted a formal investigation into the Household Cavalry in 1995. These related not just to the Household Cavalry but to some common aspects of service personnel policy. That critique was followed by a report in 1997 by the Office for Public Management, an independent consultancy, into service and civilian ethnic minority recruiting initiatives, which called for greater commitment and leadership at all levels to the goal of equal opportunities. The Ministry of Defence and the services were challenged to do more to embrace greater diversity and to make greater efforts to create armed forces which better reflected the ethnic diversity of the United Kingdom.
I have been frank on the history and I want to be frank about the present and contemporary efforts. First, to their credit, the services have been prepared publicly to face up to these trenchant criticisms and to recognise the problems. Recognition through that self-criticism is the first and necessary step in confronting and solving the problems to which my hon. Friend referred.
I mention those criticisms because they are an important backcloth against which to consider the position today. However, I do so on the basis that increasing the currently inadequate level of ethnic minority representation in the armed forces is good, not only in its own terms, although it is; nor is it only a matter of correctness—political, social, moral or otherwise—although it is morally and socially justified; but because, in the interests of effectiveness throughout the armed forces, it is vital that we recruit people who represent the widest possible pool of talent in our community.
We want the best for the British armed forces, based on merit, not on background, skin colour, religion or creed. To neglect the 7 per cent. of the population who are of ethnic minority origin would be to ignore a valuable seam of potential recruits. That is a seam that we cannot afford to ignore, for our own sake and for the many reasons I mentioned.
§ Ms AbbottIt is perfectly clear that Ministers are sincere in what they say. I am even prepared to believe that the senior levels of the armed forces are equally sincere. However, from my experience of working and managing in other spheres of life, I know that it is one thing to get the top management to say the right things, but it is another to make sure that correct practice permeates all the way down through an organisation.
We hear about cases of quite unacceptable abuse and violence, but we never hear of anybody being disciplined for perpetrating these actions against fellow soldiers. Until members of the armed forces know that they can be disciplined for committing acts of gross racist abuse and violence, those practices will continue. The Office for Public Management found that officers saw nothing wrong in calling people "coon" and "nigger" and came out with extraordinary stereotypes, such as the notion that black people cannot fight or that they do not like water.
1250 It is one thing to talk the talk, but what we require of the armed services is that they walk the walk and implement these measures all the way down to the bottom.
§ Dr. ReidI thank my hon. Friend for the several points which she raises. Her first point was that words were not sufficient—we need actions. I agree entirely and, apart from expressing our commitment, the Government, Defence Ministers and service chiefs want to examine practical ways in which to implement those policies on the ground—walking the walk, as my hon. Friend puts it, rather than talking the talk. I shall talk about that point later.
My hon. Friend's second point was that she accepts—I am glad that she does—the sincerity of Ministers and service chiefs in this respect, but that that is not sufficient in any organisation. Although not sufficient in any organisation, it is more useful in the armed forces, where the chain of command ensures that subordinate command structures carry out orders to a greater extent than could be achieved in many other organisations. That is in the nature of the armed forces.
Nevertheless, the service chiefs and I are completely in accord with my hon. Friend in the realisation that changing the ethos, culture and educational programme of personnel at all levels of the armed forces is essential. I say that with all due respect to generals, admirals and the hierarchy of all the services, but I have no doubt that, in many ways—operationally and culturally—the dynamo of the British armed forces is often found at the level of sergeants, warrant officers, corporals, and so on. Just as that pertains to our effectiveness as a fighting force, so it does to our effectiveness in changing the culture. I give credit to service chiefs, although their commitment is not a sufficient condition to achieve a solution to the problem.
I mentioned the criticisms earlier, because that was the first step in beginning to solve the problems. A vigorous implementation of policies designed to allow and encourage the recruitment of young men and women from the ethnic minorities is good for the forces, good for the defence of the country and good in terms of the numbers in our armed forces. It is also good because it offers the opportunity to able and talented young people to seek a pathway to progress through a system that offers promotion based on merit and ability, not on background. My hon. Friend has highlighted that change, which benefits all sections of the community.
Since coming to office, we have made plain our unequivocal commitment to stamping out racism. Let me spell that out again to anyone who may be listening to the debate. There is no place whatsoever for racial discrimination within the British armed forces. It will not be tolerated. I can assure my hon. Friend that that commitment is shared by the service chiefs, and is now well understood.
That is also made crystal clear to all personnel serving in the armed forces. We are trying hard to ensure that it is also made clear to those who might be considering applying to join either the Royal Navy, Army, or Royal Air Force, because it will be self-evident to everyone in the House that we recruit not in a vacuum, but from society. Many of the problems mentioned by my hon. Friend are prolific in society, particularly in some of the areas from which many of our recruits are drawn.
1251 Our starting point is that, if we are to attract and retain sufficient young men and women of the right calibre to serve in the armed forces, progression through the system must be based on merit alone, without reference to colour, race, gender or religion, and without fear of harassment or bullying.
On the practical measures which have been taken, all three services have either issued or revised their equal opportunity policies and directives. They leave all personnel, of whatever rank, absolutely clear on where their personal responsibilities lie. The Government are working with the service chiefs to build a climate within the armed forces that ensures that all personnel are free from any form of harassment—racial, sexual or religious.
It is also important for service chiefs to continue to underline publicly their personnel commitment to that cause. In my view, that is more important than leaving it just to politicians. I am particularly grateful to the service chiefs for the manner in which they have done that since the Labour party took office. As my hon. Friend has said, the Army's Chief of General Staff, Sir Roger Wheeler, did just that in October, when he relaunched the Army's equal opportunities strategy. He did so from a platform in a room packed with journalists and others who represent media interests. He did it without the presence of any Ministers or a display of political correctness. Sir Roger, like the other chiefs of staff, recognises that such a strategy is vital for the armed forces.
On that occasion, Sir Roger quite rightly said:
We must also seek to change the attitudes that affect behaviour".I also congratulate the Royal Air Force and the Second Sea Lord, Admiral Sir John Brigstocke, who also made clear his public commitment to equal opportunities at the British diversity award ceremony in December. My hon. Friend referred to the problems encountered in the Navy, but, to its eternal credit, it was shortlisted for one of the equal opportunities awards to be given at that ceremony. We should recognise the good that is being done, as well as some of the problems.
§ Dr. ReidI shall give way in a moment, but there is not much time left, and I know that my hon. Friend wants me to respond in practical terms. I should therefore like to list what we are doing.
Before I do so, I should like to note that Admiral Sir John Brigstocke made clear his public commitment to equal opportunities at the British diversity awards when he said that the Navy
would not turn a blind eye to discrimination in any form.Such high-level commitments are important, because, ultimately, it is only by influencing attitudes that the true breakthrough will be made.My hon. Friend has asked me to detail the practical policies in hand. Let us turn from rhetoric to reality, from 1252 talking the talk to walking the walk, as my hon. Friend said. We are determined that the quality of our monitoring during recruitment, and subsequently in service, is improved. We are looking at, and want to look more closely at, performance across ethnic group and gender in both recruitment and subsequent career progression. We have made it clear previously that we wish to ensure the widest possible array and talent. If we failed to do so by monitoring, we would pass up a great opportunity to the detriment of the long-term efficiency of the armed forces.
§ Ms AbbottSome regiments, such as the Guards and the Household Cavalry, have deliberately excluded black people. Will my hon. Friend introduce cap badge monitoring—monitoring by regiment?
§ Dr. ReidWould my hon. Friend do me the courtesy of allowing me to answer the question? She mentioned the Household Cavalry three times. I am delighted to tell the House that, last week, the Major-General commanding the Household Division was in Brixton, mixing with people to find practical ways to take forward one of the initiatives that I shall mention.
Of course the figures will be studied in terms of targets across cap badges. There are no get-out clauses. There is no way out. We want to do that; we are not trying to escape from it.
We realise that we need to work hard to overcome the barriers among some ethnic minorities about careers in the armed forces, so the initiatives that we have taken in Sandwell, and in Newham in London, are crucial. We are working closely in those two boroughs—not using rhetoric, but working with local councillors and leaders of education and the ethnic minorities, and we are trying to find practical ways, resulting from their partnership, to build on the initial work done. We are also looking to involve local cultural leaders and the racial equality councils in that work, because we need to sell the message nationwide and locally—at the highest level and in the streets and on the ground.
I mentioned local visits by senior commanders such as the Major-General commanding the Household Division. Our goal is simple: we want the armed forces better to reflect the ethnic balance of society. I have said that publicly. I have said it to the Commission for Racial Equality and I think that it will accord the new Government and the service chiefs appreciation for the attempts that we have made.
We want it to be widely known that we resolutely wish the number of black and Asian personnel to increase during the next few years. We are providing role models. We have established ethnic minority recruiting teams. We have placed increased emphasis on targeting the gatekeepers who are influential in determining the career choices of young people, and we are seeking to make the best possible use of the ethnic media to communicate the message so that the services recruit and welcome applications.
1253 Our priority is clear. I was able to announce to the House earlier today, in answer to a parliamentary question, that I have established targets for recruitment from ethnic minorities of 2 per cent. for next year, of 3 per cent. for the following year, of 4 per cent. for the 1254 following year and of 5 per cent. for the following year, throughout the British armed forces. Those targets are not ambitious. They will put into practice our resolution to—
§ The motion having been made after Ten o'clock, and the debate having continued for half an hour, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
§ Adjourned at eighteen minutes to Eleven o'clock.