HL Deb 07 December 1983 vol 445 cc1110-6

4.27 p.m.

Debate resumed.

Lord Avebury

My Lords, the noble Viscount, Lord Buckmaster, has given us the opportunity to talk about a substantial cross-section of the British population bearing in mind that, strictly speaking, one could even include the adherents of the established Church as being in a minority now as well as the other denominations he mentioned, such as the Methodists, the Jews, and of course the Catholics.

The situation of religious minorities is, however, a subject which requires special treatment, in my view, concentrating in particular on the questions of education which the noble Viscount, Lord Buckmaster, mentioned. While ethnic minorities have educational problems of their own such as, for example, the need for language classes to help people newly arrived in this country from places where they do not speak English as their first language, I think that the traditional emphasis on that aspect of disadvantage has tended to obscure the fact that racial handicaps tend to continue affecting people whose ancestors came here two or three generations ago in practically every facet of their daily lives.

The question of racial disadvantage is one to which the majority community should also give attention as a matter of self-interest and not out of sheer altruism. If the minorities get the short end of the stick all the time, as they definitely have done in the past, then it leads to unrest and tensions as we saw first in Bristol, and then predictably in Toxteth, Brixton and other places. If there is one thing about which we can be certain as we survey the vast field laid out for our consideration by the noble Viscount, Lord Buckmaster, it is that further riots of that kind will occur in future because the underlying causes have not been removed, in spite of all the lip-service that has been paid to the report of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman.

His report dealt with the social conditions which predispose a community towards disorder. The noble and learned Lord pointed out that the areas where riots occur shared certain features—high unemployment, a declining economic base, a decaying physical environment, bad housing, and lack of amenities. These characteristics still exist together in an explosive mixture. The fuse that sets it off, the lack of any sign of economic opportunity, is still burning away.

Initiatives are being taken in some parts of the country to redress economic disadvantage. I should like particularly to mention the work in Birmingham of Mr. Gus Williams, who has waged a one-man war against racial deprivation with his imaginative schemes for giving young people a better chance in life. Mr. Williams has developed there attractive training courses in a variety of vocational skills such as printing, graphics design, television repair, and catering. In this way he gives pride and hope to the participants, role models to their peer groups, and, ultimately, some regeneration of economic activity in areas which seriously need upgrading.

However, Mr. Williams believes that too much of the energy and skills available are channelled into the tussle with central and local government so that not enough is left over for the implementation of such projects as the one that he runs. He would like to see a greater degree of self management and voluntary initiative, with funds coming from a widened Section 11 of the Local Government Act 1966, as has been advocated for some years. Mr. Williams considers from his own practical experience that in this way a dent could be made in the unacceptably high levels of black unemployment, which have been alluded to by the noble Viscount, Lord Buckmaster.

May I ask the Minister what has happened to the Statement by the Secretary of State for Employment, as promised by Mr. Alan Clark in reply to a Parliamentary Question, which has already been mentioned?

It is the other aspect of Lord Scarman's report on which I should like to concentrate. The noble Lord examined the relations between the police and the black communities, and he reached the conclusion that prejudiced behaviour, while uncommon, did incalculable damage. He said it was therefore essential (and I quote paragraph 4.64) that, every possible step be taken to prevent and to root out racially prejudiced attitudes in the police service". He went on to make recommendations on the introduction of careful checks in the recruitment of officers and in training, supervision and disciplinary arrangements. I quote again: The police cannot rest on the argument that since they are a cross-section of society, some officers are bound to be racially prejudiced. Senior Metropolitan police officers accept this". But, two years later, progress does not seem to have been commensurate with the need, to judge from the formidable report of the Policy Studies Institute, which the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, mentioned. That report says that racist attitudes and languageare monotonously pervasive among the police—and not just at lower levels; it goes right the way up to inspector and chief inspector. That is common knowledge among black people, and it has been alleged by some observers in the white community, such as Derek Humphry in his book, Police power and black people. But it has never been accepted, as it is now, by the police themselves as a legitimate criticism. To that extent I agree with those noble Lords that there has been some advance.

The Commissioner, Sir Kenneth Newman, has said that generally he accepts the PSI findings, and he does not seek to deny the authenticity of the many horror stories on which the conclusions are based. Your Lordships will have read in newspaper accounts, if not in the report itself, that it is common practice to refer to black people in grossly offensive terms, which I do not propose to repeat. They indulge in the most revolting racist jokes; and they display crude and irrational prejudices, as in the case of the chief inspector who said that Asians are incapable of telling the truth. In only one of the 10 divisions that the PSI studied was a clear lead given by senior management in combating racist attitudes and language, and in cultivating good relations across the board with minorities.

One might think it hardly surprising that relations between the black communities and the police are so bad when the black people can hardly fail to be aware of what the police think of them. Yet, surprisingly, the researchers said that those who made racist remarks acted fairly and impartially when dealing with black members of the public. I must say that this conclusion is difficult to reconcile with common sense, with the disproportionate number of young black people stopped and searched and with the anecdotes of the researchers themselves. The researchers believed, from the experience they had in talking to the police, that irregularities in the treatment of suspects were a reflection of racial hostility, and that seems to contradict the notion that racist attitudes never carry over into professional conduct.

Incidentally, the general standard of conduct of officers as described here, quite apart from racism, is quite unacceptable, and I think the Commissioner ought to make it clear that he intends to change things. It is not good enough to say, as he did on "The London Programme", that male society has certain macho characteristics and that the police force reflects those characteristics that are general in society as a whole. That comes close to the view that was condemned by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman, on which he said he had the agreement of senior officers.

A police force is not a rugby club or a corporals' mess where loutish behaviour and heavy drinking can be indulged in without causing harm to the outside world. The Commissioner ought to say that to his force loudly and clearly. He has sent a video round to police forces in the metropolis, but it does not contain any overt condemnation of conduct of the kind that was described in the PSI report.

If I may venture one criticism of this report, it is that it is long on analysis and short on conclusions, especially in comparison with that of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman, who said at the beginning that efforts must be made to avoid racially prejudiced people entering the police service. He recommended that work being done by the metropolitan police to establish scientific ways of identifying racial prejudice should be rigorously pursued, with the support of the Home Office, and the results incorporated in the procedure for selecting recruits.

Two years later the PSI now calls for the development of, structured questioning methods or aptitude tests to assess the qualities that are of value in the police force, without actually mentioning racism, although one gathers that what the team is saying in a roundabout way is that racists, sexists and people with a fondness for heavy drinking should be weeded out.

When we were debating the Scarman Report last October the Minister said that he did not expect to find any objective tests by which racism could be detected in probationers, and he said that research work done here and in the United States had shown that no such tests exist. I have looked in the literature but have been unable to find anything that leads one to this conclusion. If the noble Lord the Minister was right, what was recommended by Scarman and what is now suggested by the PSI is a waste of time and effort; we should not attempt to weed out the racist at the recruitment stage. I think the sort of overt racism which is described in the report ought to be fairly easily detectable in a two-day period of testing, such as is now given to recruits by the Metropolitan Police. It was the reaction of Sir Kenneth that research is being conducted into scientific testing of attitudes, so obviously he believes that in the end research will enable one to discover and weed out this kind of person at the recruitment stage, and that a lot of public money will be saved if we can avoid those people joining the police force in the first place.

The noble Lord, Lord Scarman, made certain important recommendations on training. He said that, above all, the central theme should be the need for the police to secure the consent and support of the public. Surprisingly, the PSI had nothing specific to say about training, although clearly it should be designed to improve the knowledge and understanding of minorities by the police and to remove the extraordinary misconceptions from which some officers suffer.

The Police Training Council working party, in its report of February 1983, had this to say: it does not seem to us wise to rely entirely on the capacity of the well-trained officer to mask his private attitudes". In this report the Police Training Council working party made a number of highly relevant proposals, and it will be interesting to know to what extent they are being implemented by the Metropolitan Police.

Perhaps the Minister will be good enough to tell us whether any general conclusions have been reached on those recommendations. As there are far too many of them to discuss in detail this afternoon I shall limit myself to just two questions. First, do all officers up to the rank of Chief Inspector receive training and, bearing in mind the crucial influence of a senior officer's attitude on his subordinates, how is the training being conducted, and by whom? Secondly, is it now accepted that attitude training is necessary, and what steps are being taken to put a stop to the overt racism which appears to be endemic from the observations of the Policies Studies Institute?

I want now to mention the question of consultation and accountability. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman, said that a statutory framework should be developed for local consultation between the Metropolitan Police and the community at borough level. That has not happened yet, although it is on the way, as your Lordships well know. To be honest, it is a task that is fraught with enormous political difficulties since some boroughs have adopted a foolish policy of refusing to have anything whatever to do with the police. They do not appear to realise that if many officers are racist in their attitudes—and sometimes in their behaviour—that is the product of a closed police culture, which is simply reinforced by boycotting. On the other hand, in Lambeth the lessons of Brixton seem to have been taken to heart. Inspector Nigel Yeo, who was the community liaison officer at Brixton police station, says this: It is generally considered that the better relationship between the police and the public, coupled with greater community involvement in crime prevention and policing associated with the community police consultative group, have helped the people of Lambeth not least in the field of crime prevention". The London Association of Community Relations Council in their annual report for 1983 refer also to, a modest but real measure of success in improving police-community relations". There are disagreements of course between the political parties on public accountability of the police in Greater London, and some of us should like to see elected representatives having powers over the operational strategy of the police. But while we are waiting for the opportunity to put these changes into effect it is surely illogical and childish to forgo the chance of having any influence whatsoever on the police, as they have done in the London Borough of Hackney. I hope in the end that the council there will take the sensible advice offered by Councillor Victoria Lubbock and others and try out arrangements for consultation over the next 12 months. They have nothing to lose in Hackney but their ideological chains in carrying out such an experiment in consultation to see whether it does not benefit the people of that borough, as I believe it would throughout Greater London.

In the meanwhile, Clause 96 of the Police Bill gives the Secretary of State the power to issue guidelines on how the statutory arrangements are to work; but these have yet to be issued. The previous edition which was published in June 1982 was, if I may say so, vague and woolly. Since then the London Association of Community Relations Councils has proposed that what has been accepted in Lambeth, which does involve some degree of accountability on strategy, should be adopted for London as a whole. If I may say so to the Minister, I hope that this will be the formula adopted by the Secretary of State. Whatever he does, he should at least publish these guidelines before the Bill leaves Parliament, because after that there will be no opportunity, as of right, to discuss them. They are not in the form of a statutory instrument, which would have given Parliament the right to throw them out if they were wholly inadequate.

I now turn to a matter of equal importance: that is, the operation of the Race Relations Act, 1976, in which so much hope was reposed at the time of its passing. I think it must be admitted that very little progress has been made towards racial equality as a result of that legislation, and in the normal course of things we also would have welcomed the consultation exercise which has now been instituted by the Commission for Racial Equality. But we feel that the political climate is not appropriate at this time because the political will for change which would be needed to make it effective is not there, and we rather fear that the Commission for Racial Equality itself has no stomach for radical change. We think that instead of merely tinkering with the Act at the edges, the review should have been seen as an exercise in reappraising the needs of the communities, the nature of the problems to be tackled and the resource as well as the legislative approaches to their solution.

The consultation document issued by the CRE fails in three ways, it seems to us. It does not recognise the need to move towards a greater degree of self-determination by ethnic minority communities and individuals in deciding their own goals and priorities. It leaves out of account altogether the dimension of racial disadvantage, when it has been recognised since the White Paper of 1975 that any attempt to deal with the problem of discrimination is bound to fail unless it is accompanied by a wider strategy for attacking disadvantage. It ignores the major factor of racial harassment and racially-motivated violence against people and property. We therefore ask the CRE to give further thought to the general situation of minorities as the context into which this legislation has to fit, and to consult with minorities about the principles that ought to be followed before they come forward with any final proposals for the amendment of the Act.

I should like to know from the Minister, if I may, what the next stage is to be. Does he envisage that the CRE will bring forward some definite proposals as a result of the consultation exercise? Following that, will the Government publish their own White Paper or will there be an intermediate stage of a Green Paper and further consultation?

Subject to these considerations, there are one or two observations that we can make about the consultation exercise. We have reached the conclusion that ethnic record-keeping within a structured monitoring system is necessary to ensure equality of opportunity in employment, and we welcome the limited initiative the Government have taken on this matter, although we believe that they are moving too slowly.

On affirmative action, we do not see that the CRE has provided enough of a base for discussion. The existing provisions are clearly inadequate and under-utilised, and I notice that the noble Lord the Minister did not reply to my noble friend Baroness Seear when she asked for details of the use that had so far been made of Section 37. The entire question needs to be identified as an area in itself, requiring its own public debate. In the meanwhile, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman, did identify the scope for positive action to redress the balance of racial disadvantage and a start should be made immediately with some pilot action programme.

We sympathise with the CRE's aim of reducing the complexity of the formal investigation procedures. In the case of a strategic investigation, the commission ought to be able to show that it has reasonable grounds for it, but this could be in general terms and not related to any specific cases of discrimination. For the named investigation where a particular firm or body is under scrutiny, there should be reasonable belief that breaches of the Act have occurred.

On individual cases of discrimination, we agree with the proposal that a discrimination tribunal should be established to hear cases instead of the courts, with provision for the tribunal to be chaired by a judge of the High Court, sitting with assessors, in cases of exceptional difficulty.

The CRE's consultative paper appeared in July and the closing date for submissions was the end of last month. We consider this exercise to be a critical test of the Government's intentions in respect of ethnic minorities. If they respond promptly and positively, and if they declare not only that legislation has a high priority for them but that resources will be made available, where that is shown to be necessary for the attainment of racial equality, then we in the Liberal and Social Democratic Alliance shall support them with all our strength; however, if they drag their feet, allowing the pressures to build up again towards more disorders on streets and the very much larger penumbra of discontent over the lack of positive commitment to an ideal in which every party, after all, claims to believe, then we shall take the issue to the ethnic minorities themselves and mobilise them to political action.