The Ethnic and Religious Minorities

HL Deb 07 December 1983 vol 445 cc1090-101

3.4 p.m.

Viscount Buckmaster rose to call attention to the situation of the ethnic and religious minorities in Great Britain; and to move for Papers.

The noble Viscount said: My Lords, as I contemplate the vastness and complexity of my task in introducing this debate to your Lordships' House this afternoon, I see myself in my mind's eye standing at the edge of a large swimming pool with the deep end marked "E" for ethnic and the shallow end marked "R" for religious. Just as in any swimming pool, it is impossible to say precisely where the deep end finishes and the shallow end begins, so it is with the two subjects we are considering this afternoon. By that, I mean that ethnic and religious problems merge almost imperceptibly. We have, for example. the Pakistanis whose problems here stem both from their racial origins and from their deeply held religious beliefs as Moslems. On the other hand, we have the West Indians who, as Christians, will not concern us when we come to consider the shallow or religious end of the pool.

Another very important point about our swimming pool is that the chlorination system is almost wholly ineffective—particularly at the deep end. By that, I mean that widespread prejudice and ignorance about the minorities make the waters of the deep end so cloudy that few would venture into them with relish. Yet I am delighted to see a number of noble Lords poised on the springboard, ready to dive in. I greatly look forward to their contributions because I know that they will be able to perform in those murky waters so much more ably than I, who have spent the greater part of my adult life in the third world.

Let me set the scene with a few statistics. The group we shall be mainly considering this afternoon is one which the Home Office in their wisdom describe as New Commonwealth and Pakistan. The total number within that group is roughly 2¼ million, representing about 4 per cent. of the population of this country. The term "New Commonwealth and Pakistan" includes the Commonwealth states of the Caribbean and of East and West Africa, the whole of the Indian sub continent, and the Commonwealth states of the Far East such as Malaysia, Hong Kong and Singapore.

The three principal groups we have to consider this evening are the Indians, who number roughly 719,000; the West Indians. 520,000; and the Pakistanis. approximately 283,000. But all those figures are somewhat on the low side. For example, there are thought to he in the region of 40,000 Pakistanis living here, who have now taken on British nationality. The numbers of that group are increasing rapidly. In accordance with a survey drawn up in 1979, it is estimated that by 1986 the number of the New Commonwealth and Pakistan group will reach 3¼ to 3½million.

There are, of course, other groups. The Arabs, for example, number some 120,000. There are also the Chinese. Japanese, and so on—but I do not believe that we need concern ourselves with those to any great extent.

The distribution of what one might call the NCP group, as your Lordships probably know, is fairly straightforward. The bulk of them are in Greater London, the Midlands, and the North. There are around 1 million of them in London and 1¼ million in places such as Birmingham, Bradford and Leeds. Of our London boroughs, there are four where they account for something in the region of 25 per cent. of the population. The four are Ealing, Lambeth, Hackney and Haringey. In Brent, the proportion of the NCP group is as high as 33 per cent.

An interesting statistic that I discovered recently was that in Bradford, no less than 45 per cent. of the Asian population is under 15 years of age; and in one ward in Bradford no fewer than 90 per cent. of children under five years of age are from the NCP group.

We must now consider the areas from which those people come. I believe that is of great importance in understanding how they fit into our society today—and that applies to the second and third generation immigrants as well as to those who have come here more recently. The variety of their backgrounds is truly staggering. First, there are the Arabs. They are a relatively small group in this country but nevertheless they are growing and in many ways are of some importance. Some of them are still reeling from the all too rapid impact of the 20th century onto a 14th or 15th century infrastructure. One therefore gets the most staggering transformations from rags to riches, camels to Cadillacs, and hovels to Hiltons. Indeed, I am not exaggerating when I say that when I visited the United Arab Emirates last year I found a man I had employed as a humble boatman 25 years ago owning two Mercedes and four houses, two in Britain, and a major share in the Hilton and three other hotels, That is one extreme At the other extreme we have many from the sub-continent who are living—let us face it—in conditions of degradation and despair.

Even worse, there are those who come from countries like Uganda, Iran and some of the countries of Eastern Europe, where terror, torture and senseless slaughter are all too apparent. From the comfort and security of our homes, and what I might perhaps describe as the serenity of your Lordships' House, it is impossible to realise the full horror of these happenings. I have been to some of these areas, and I am in contact with people from them who come to Britain. I have seen it; I know it. Therefore, I hope very much that the Home Office, in considering the applications of such people to come here, will do so with all the consideration and tolerance for which they are well known.

Another very important aspect in the context of backgrounds is that so many of the people have had to exchange their rigid moral upbringings—for example, the austere, almost puritanical, ways of the Arabian Desert, the East African tribe, or the Caribbean homestead—for the perils and pitfalls of the permissive society.

Let us now look at the people themselves; and there I have found that many of them have qualities of which we ought to be aware, even if we cannot emulate them. The finest Christians I have found anywhere in the world have been Ugandans. Among the East African tribes one sees a degree of courage which is seldom met elsewhere. For hospitality, who can beat the Arabs of the desert? For business acumen, I would put the Lebanese well above any others. And perhaps for warmth and radiant personality in the face of appalling difficulties I would put the Afro-Caribbeans. So some of these people have much to offer us: a new insight, perhaps, of cultures and religions other than our own; a brief encounter with new dimensions of terror or poverty; the enfolding warmth of an extended family; a smile that comes from the very depths of the heart; a taste of honey—yes, indeed, but of myrrh and aloes, too.

I now come to the kernel of my speech, to the nub of the problems we shall be discussing this afternoon. What issues should concern us? May I put it to your Lordships that we should consider the implementation, or otherwise, of the Race Relations Act 1976. We should look particularly at the progress, or otherwise, made in implementing the recommendations of the Scarman Report on the Brixton troubles of 1981, debated in your Lordships' House on 3rd February 1982. Here may I say how deeply honoured I am that my noble and learned friend Lord Scarman has agreed to take part in this debate. There are other areas, of course, that we should consider, like the recent survey prepared for the Metropolitan Police, which I shall come on to later.

What are the contributions, positive or negative, that the ethnic minorities make? We see them all over London. We see them driving buses, running supermarkets, employed in hospitals and so on. What a splendid contribution some of them make. I am thinking particularly of many of the Asian shop keepers, who keep their shops open until 1 or 2 o'clock in the morning. They make money—yes, indeed they do—but they do not fritter it away; they do not squander it on fast women or slow horses. They send it back home to the third world. Your Lordships may know that in supporting these people you will be helping to alleviate third world poverty. There is also, of course, the other side of the coin. Some of your Lordships may say—and it may be said widely in the country—that there are too many of them here, that they take up jobs which might well be done by Britons, and that they are engaged in petty crime.

As for my own views—and I hope I shall be as objective as possible, as befits a speaker from these Benches—my researches in the last few weeks, limited as they are, have taken me to London, Bradford and one or two other areas. I find myself looking at a baffling kaleidoscope of facts and impressions. Very gradually one or two images are beginning to emerge. The most vivid of these is that over the past few years tolerance and understanding towards these groups have grown—slowly, imperceptibly. One sees it, for example, in schools, in colleges, on the shop floor and in the shopping arcades.

Let me give just two or three examples. The other day I met a Nigerian who had lived here 15 years ago. He came back to Britain, and he told me that he had noticed a very marked change in the general attitude towards black people. A Zambian who travels extensively in Europe told me that Britain was the most tolerant country towards black people of any he had met. We know that the GLC is making tremendous efforts to understand the racial minorities and to cope with their problems. In Bradford, the city council are doing all they can to blunt the sharp edge of racial deprivation.

I think we might perhaps say that Brixton was a watershed. Before Brixton we were groping; we were not fully aware of these problems; we did not know how to solve them. Now I think we are working on the right lines, thanks to the admirable report of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman, which I may say—and I hope he will he happy to hear it—is greatly appreciated in Bradford. They have studied it with great care, and they are doing their utmost to implement its recommendations.

Despite this generally encouraging picture. I am afraid to say that there are rumblings of discontent in various areas. There was an interesting survey produced by the GLC not long ago drawing attention to the extent of racial harassment in various areas. A survey produced by the Home Office in 1982 stated that the Bengalis of East London were no less than 50 times more liable to be attacked than any other group.

But whatever the extent of harassment or racial misunderstanding, I think it is clear that relations between the ethnic minorities and the police are not wholly harmonious, as your Lordships will have seen from the survey produced for the Metropolitan Police, with its very disturbing conclusion that so many of the West Indians and other black people lack confidence in our police. The Metropolitan Police and the Bradford City Police are making great strides to put this right; I know that. For example, in Bradford. particularly, they are concentrating on the recruitment of more policemen from the ethnic minorities. They are carrying out realistic training programmes, and so on. In that way they are bringing in speakers from outside, from the minorities themselves, to train their police groups.

In regard to unemployment, Bradford again is perhaps a pointer to a very disturbing situation. No fewer than 93 per cent. of 16-year-old Asian school-leavers in Bradford are unable to get a job. As regards crime. I know that statistics are not all that easy to come by, but it seems that the West Indians are more engaged in crime than any others. One reason for that, of course, apart from unemployment, is that their tribal backgrounds have been disrupted; in particular, the matriarchal society, to which they have become accustomed, has been largely destroyed. A different side of the picture is given in a recent book by Roy Kerridge called Real Wicked Guy which indicates that they can make a very positive contribution—and indeed are doing so.

As I see the clock ticking out against me I must do a rapid crawl from the deep end to the shallow end of our pool to consider the religious minorities. Many noble Lords will ask: why include religious minorities at all? Surely we are one of the most tolerant countries in the world. We do not stop Moslems from saying their prayers five times a day. We allow them to slaughter their animals in their own religious way with the animals' heads pointing towards Mecca. If a Hindu wants to walk a sacred cow down Piccadilly there is nothing to stop him, as far as I am aware. But there are problems which arise when religious practices clash with our own legislation. I am thinking of the problems encountered by the Sikhs who, as your Lordships probably know, are obliged to wear the turban. It is an absolute religious necessity. Fortunately, they won their right to wear turbans when riding motorcycles and in schools. In the same way, the Moslems have certain needs which I shall deal with in a moment. Perhaps I should say in passing that the Moslems are by far the largest religious community in Britain, other than the Christians. They number 1¼ million. There are more Moslems in this country than there are Methodists and considerably more than there are Jews. But before I come to the Moslems I shall say a quick word about the non-white Christians in Britain because they hold very strong views. Their numbers are increasing outside this country and we should bear in mind that many of them regard the type of Christianity which is found in some of our churches as way out, weak-kneed and wishy-washy.

I should also like very briefly to deal with the problem of religious education, although the debate is not primarily about that. It is splendid that so many of our schools in London, the Midlands, Bradford and elsewhere are encouraging our children to get to know other cultures and other faiths, but I feel very strongly—I hope the right reverend Prelate and the noble Lord, Lord Soper, will support me—that we are a Christian country and that our children should be taught Christianity in our schools, preferably by a believing Christian. One gets the impression—I may be wrong—that in some of our ILEA schools other religions are taught as possible alternatives to Christianity. What does one find? They may start off with Christianity on Monday; Islam on Tuesday; Sikhism on Wednesday. Buddhism on Thursday; and perhaps a little touch of Zoroastrianism on Friday to add a little zest to the proceedings. How can any 10 or 11-year-old child cope with such a situation? That glorious canticle Te Deum ends with the words Let me never be confounded". Are we not confusing and confounding our children? I very much hope that we are not, but I fear that we are.

What about the Moslems? On a previous occasion I bored your Lordships with along dissertation on Islamic theology and I have no intention of doing so again. But I emphasise in the context of this debate their insistence on what we might call the three Ds—self-discipline, decency and dignity. In that context it is easy to see how they find our permissive society totally abhorrent. The ILEA and the Bradford education authority have made excellent provision for some of the special needs of Moslem children in their schools. For example, there is provision for them to pray at specified times; there is the provision of ritually slaughtered meat, and so on. But what the Moslems really want, more than anything else, is single-sex schools. They do not want racial integration but they do want single-sex schools because they see what goes on in some of our comprehensive schools—and they may well he justified. They see such things as teenage sex, teenage abortions, giving the Pill to girls under 16, and so on. All this they find totally abhorrent. They are also keen to get a little more co-operation from some of the local authorities on the provision of places of worship and special cemeteries.

I opened my speech by a swimming pool. I shall close it in a kitchen. A short while ago I tried to make a cake. It was quite a simple fruitcake with currants and sultanas in it. But, however hard I tried, the currants and sultanas went to the bottom of the mixture. One can perhaps see a likeness in that with our religious and ethnic minorities here if we equate the currants with the West Indians and Africans and the sultanas with the Asians. I fear that is what is happening in some areas. They are forming mini-ghettoes. They tend to congregate together until they coalesce in a compact lump like the currants in my cake.

However, we are now approaching Christmas and I think we must turn from cakes to Christmas puddings. Here we have another interesting parallel. I would not suggest that we can mix all our ethnic minorities in the same way that we can mix the ingredients of a Christmas pudding. They must retain their separate identities; but a certain amount of mixing, blending and mutual understanding is obviously essential. Mixing a Christmas pudding is a difficult operation. It requires patience, skill and a certain amount of knowledge. Above all, it requires the co-operation of the whole family.

Here we see important differences. When we mix our Christmas puddings the first person on the scene is grandpa. He is a bit reluctant. He has mixed many puddings before and every year there are more currants in the mixture. I am afraid that he, and many people like him, have been brought up on the "Ten little nigger-boys" rhyme. He tends to regard black people with hostility and suspicion. Now we come to mum and dad. Oh, yes, we get an improvement there. They are certainly quite good mixers. Dad is fitting in very well. We see considerable co-operation now between whites and blacks on the shop floor and elsewhere. What a change that is from the 1950s and 1960s when the first Caribbeans came to this country and their presence led to strikes in many factories. Mum is getting on quite well, too. She probably has a Nigerian friend in the bingo hall.

But it is when we come to the children that we find the real mixers. How wonderfully enthusiastic they areas they take up the heavy wooden spoons and stir the mixture! Do we not have a wonderful parallel there with what is happening in the ILEA—the glorious mixing and blending of races. One sees the children going to the museums in South Kensington—black, white, Asian, Pakistani and Cypriot—all mingling happily together. In our ILEA schools we have 147 different languages.

As we think in terms of racial blending, intermingling and the development of tolerance and understanding. I put to your Lordships one final thought—mutual inter-dependence. I beg leave to move for Papers.

3.30 p.m.

Lord Mishcon

My Lords. may I say on behalf of the Opposition, and, indeed, I believe, on behalf of the whole House, how grateful we are to the noble Viscount, Lord Buckmaster, for bringing this matter once more to the attention of the House to allow it to be debated. It is a matter which weighs heavily upon the conscience of our nation, which has such a wonderful history and tradition of liberal thinking and tolerant conduct.

We debate this matter with the benefit of the presence of many distinguished Members of your Lordships' House who have great experience of these social problems. I believe that the House is very glad to know that the Church is represented in this debate by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chichester and by my noble friend Lord Soper, and that the law is so magnificently represented by the noble and learned Lord. Lord Scarman and the noble Lord, Lord McNair. As I see the noble and learned Lord, Lord Salmon. I cannot help recollecting the memorable words which many of us will never forget which he uttered at the time of the Notting Hill riot trials. He spoke for the whole of England when he said that our streets are to be kept for those who peacefully walk upon them, whatever their colour, race or creed. It is against that background that we are conducting this debate.

We have to realise what the problem is. I cannot do better than quote the very words of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman, in his report following the Brixton riots of April 1981. At paragraph 9.1 he said: The evidence which I have received … leaves no doubt in my mind that racial disadvantage is a fact of current British life. It was, I am equally sure, a significant factor in the causation of the Brixton disorders. Urgent action is needed if it is not to become an endemic, ineradicable disease threatening the very survival of our society". Those words were pregnant with meaning. I believe that it will be useful in this debate to concentrate not upon expressing the fact that we abhor racial discrimination (which I know is the view of the whole House) but very much on such actions as we can think of and such programmes as we can create to do something to alleviate the problem.

I say this very frankly. I was delighted to note that in one of the first public speeches made by the present Home Secretary after his appointment to that high office he expressed himself in no uncertain terms when he said that he was, unshakably opposed to discrimination on any grounds.… I am determined that members of every ethnic minority should enjoy the equality before the law and equality of opportunity which are the priceless heritage of all our fellow countrymen". I want to deal with five aspects of this matter where I hope that we can concentrate our attention. Obviously I shall leave out others but I have no doubt that other speakers will mention them. The first aspect that I want to mention is the relevance of law and order to the problem. Unless the ethnic minorities in this country are convinced that law and order are operating justly and without discrimination, their respect for law and order will be absent. I am talking about the well behaved among them—and there are many—and those who are still capable of being influenced as adolescents—and there are many. The result of the absence of that respect is something with which your Lordships are only too familiar in regard to other debates that we have had on delinquency, crimes of violence, and so on.

The first comment I have to make is this. There is not the slightest doubt but that our judiciary is something of which this nation is rightly proud. I say here and now that the equality before the law of every one of our citizens is a sacrosanct principle. I should not be completely honest with your Lordships if I did not say that in my younger days in the law, when appearing in the lower courts (magistrates' courts and county courts), I came across examples—in a minority of cases. I assure your Lordships—in which I found to my dismay that discourtesy was being handed out by some magistrates and county court judges to witnesses who did not have benefit of a white colour. The examples were few but they were very distressing. As I say, I am not even talking about those who were accused before a court. I mention this only in order that the word may go out, if it be necessary, that it is most important in regard to respect for law and order that such behaviour should never occur in our courts of law. I accentuate the fact it is only rarely that I have seen it and that others have experienced it.

Having said that, I turn to what the noble Viscount referred to. The report was commissioned as a result of the great courage of a former Commissioner of Police. He was a man of great integrity who invited the study of relations between the Metropolitan Police and the community it serves. He had the help of the Policy Studies Institute in so doing. The report was published only a few weeks ago. I have no reason to believe that the story of the metropolis and its police is very much different—very much better or very much worse—than the story that could be told of the police in any of our inner urban areas.

A part of that report caused great distress. I repeat that it is to the credit of the police that this report was sought and has been published. This is what it says on page 332: In detail the findings are complex, but they certainly show that in some respects there is a dangerous lack of confidence in the police among substantial numbers of young white people and a disastrous lack of confidence among young people of West Indian origin. One third of white people aged 15 to 24think the Police often use threats or unreasonable pressure in questioning and one fifth think they often use excessive force on arrest and that they often unjustifiably use force on people held in police stations. Among people aged 15 to 24 of West Indian origin, 62 per cent. of them think the Police use threats and unreasonable pressure in questioning, 56 per cent. that they often unjustifiably use violence on people held at police stations, 43 per cent. that they often fabricate evidence and 41 per cent. that they often make false records of interviews". At the end, the report reads at page 351: Although it has less effect on policing behaviour than might be expected, the level of racial prejudice in the Force is cause for serious concern. No simple and straightforward solution to this problem can be offered, especially since many police officers do not see that racial prejudice makes it more difficult for them to achieve their policing objectives". That report, at the end, made two important recommendations in regard to training and in regard to contact with the community generally and matters of that kind. Bearing in mind the shortness of time at my disposal and the limits to your Lordships' patience, I merely intend to ask the noble Lord the Minister, when he replies, to tell the House whether or not those recommendations seem to be of a good, positive nature and whether, in fact, it is going to be seen that they are carried out. In that connection one does want to know, especially in the light of the findings of this survey, what, please, is the Government's thinking about the future of the Metropolitan Police? Who is to control them? Who is to look after their policy? Who is to look after their training as a matter of policy? Is that still to continue with the Home Secretary and the Government thinking? What is to be the control of the public of London in regard to such matters?

I believe that all members of your Lordships' House will remember the recommendations of the Scarman Report and, bearing in mind that the noble and learned Lord is contributing to this debate, I intend to say no more about them except that I shall be so interested to hear from the noble Lord the Minister to what extent those recommendations, especially in regard to the police, have been carried out.

I move to my second area of concern and that is the matter of employment. The noble Viscount. Lord Buckmaster, referred to that point and, if I got his figures right, said that, on leaving school, 90 per cent. of Bradford's West Indian youngsters were unemployed and could not find jobs. One does not hear figures of that kind without a grave feeling of disquiet, but one inquires of oneself: what is the situation in regard to the whole country? At page 334 of the report from which I just quoted, dealing with the relations between the Metropolitan Police and the community services, one finds this: The latest national survey by PSI shows that the unemployment rate among young men and women of West Indian origin is of the order of 50 percent. and all the evidence suggests that racial discrimination, especially in recruitment to employment, continues at a high level". I wondered whether there was anything very recent that I could bring before your Lordships to show again how much of a problem this is. I note that on the 27th October 1983 there was a Written Answer in another place to a Question that was put down by Mr. Andrew Bennett to the Secretary of State for Employment. He asked: What was the unemployment rate among the ethnic minorities in October 1983? Mr. Alan Clark replied: The latest available data, from the 1981 labour force survey, shows that in the second quarter of 1981 17 per cent. of the ethnic minority working force in Great Britain were seeking work. Is not this one of the greatest problems that we have in connection with the ethnic minorities? How can we give them hope? How can we talk to them in terms of being useful citizens when one cannot even give them the usefulness of thinking that they are part of the working population of this country and that they have something useful to contribute?

Here I do look at the Government and say to them—and I do assure your Lordships of the sincerity of this—without in any way endeavouring to score points, every time there is a debate on employment one gets the answer: what we have managed to do is to bring inflation down. All I am saying is we may be containing something that inflates but we are creating something that inflames; and if you have that sort of principle, are you not creating many more evils than you ever create even if you have some measure of increased inflation? We shall not in any way manage to look at or solve this problem until we look at this dreadful area of unemployment among the ethnic minorities.

I turn swiftly to the third area and that is one of education. I had hoped that the noble Baroness, Baroness Faithfull, would have been able to contribute to this debate, because I remember so well that she was a member of the Rampton Committee. I can remember on, I believe, the debate that took place on the Scarman Report she made a very memorable speech, but it may even have been on the Rampton Report itself. I know that in that debate—and I believe in her speech—she brought out in your Lordships' House the points that young West Indians especially were labouring under many disadvantages that had to be appreciated. The 1971 census showed that 68 per cent. of West Indian mothers were working, as against 48 per cent. of the national total, and that, so far as fathers were concerned there were twice as many West Indians working on night shifts as there were white men working on night shifts.

We have not got to go very far to see the reasons for lack of parental care. Those of us who have tried to assist in connection with rehabilitation and other matters affecting West Indian immigrants know perfectly well that it is had enough that there is sometimes a complete language gap—sometimes, indeed, very much of a generation gap; if we get this added on, we can well realise what difficulties there are.

I turn to the Minister and I ask whether in fact the Government has any special programmes in regard to dealing with the four points that I remember the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman, made which are relevant to these issues: the under fives, teacher training, language, home and school liaison and whether the education cuts, indeed, are not eating into any improvements that may have been achievable in this area.

I turn briefly, if I may, to my fourth area, which is Government services. Your Lordships may wonder why it is that I have even included that area. I do it for this reason. There are few of us in this House. I believe. who would endeavour to argue that immigration control of some kind or other is unnecessary. Governments of all kinds have had to think in terms of measures of immigration control; but what one has to do is to see that that immigration control is conducted with fairness, with courtesy and with understanding.

I am not going into the political difference that exists between my noble friends and the Government on the wisdom of the British Nationality Act. I promise I shall say no more than that there is that difference. But in regard to immigration control at our airports and other places of immigration, it is a fact—an unfortunate fact—that all too often people who come into this country, be it as tourists or as visitors, who have black skins and who are applying for immigration or for permission to come here for a limited period, are not treated with that courtesy and understanding, or with every degree of promptitude, that is accorded to those who are not coloured in the same way.

This is unfortunate—and, again, I am not making a general accusation of any kind. I too often see complaints of this nature. In those circumstances, I have to mention it if we are dealing with this problem of ethnic minorities and how we should encourage respect for our system, our law and order, and those controls that we have upon those who come into our country.

I come now to the very last area, and that is the state of law and its enforcement. There are areas here that have to be looked at very carefully if we are to say that we are satisfied with their present state. I have here—and I promise that I am not going to read them to the House—examples of literature which are being circulated, put through letter boxes and. in some cases. handed out to our children, which I would not wish to quote in your Lordships' House. They are examples of the most distorted, wicked, racial incitment that any Member of your Lordships' House would ever wish to see in this country of ours. What I propose to do is to hand them after this debate to the noble Lord the Minister so that he can see them. I merely say that for one reason or other, in spite of reports having been made, prosecutions cannot be brought, or are not brought. One has to examine whether or not our legislation really does not have to be looked at a little more closely in this connection if prosecutions cannot he brought in such instances.

There is the question of the marches. I would love to know, as I am sure would your Lordships, the Government's present thinking in regard to the Public Order Act, and what is being done about those marches which have just one object in view—to incite racial fear and racial hatred. Some of the marches are being stopped. At whose discretion? Is it the chief constable? Is it the Home Secretary? Have we got things right in that connection? What is being done about the Commission for Racial Equality and its powers of investigation? Those powers are very important. But the report made by Peter Newsam, of that commission, in July 1983, very properly quotes remarks made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, when he was the distinguished Master of the Rolls. The noble and learned Lord said: Already the machine is so cumbersome. …it is almost grinding to a halt. That is the result of the parliamentary provisions that the Commission have done their best to go on with but which are so difficult". I ask the Government again: what is being done in answer to the plea that was made on behalf of the commission to simplify and, indeed, amplify its powers of investigation? And what is the Government's thinking about the Race Relations Act? Are the Government satisfied that the Act is doing what it ought to do? Or is their view that its powers and its implementation could be more complete?

As always, your Lordships have been most patient and most tolerant. I hope that the same patience and tolerance will be extended throughout the debate to the racial minorities in our midst in our new society—a society which all of us pray will re-echo the glories of our past, the tolerances of our past, and make us, as we all want to be. a family within our nation.