Multi-ethnic Britain

HL Deb 19 July 2001 vol 626 cc1645-66

7.30 p.m.

Baroness Uddin rose to ask Her Majesty's Government how they will respond to the recommendations of The Parekh Report: The Future of Multi-Ethnic Britain.

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, at the time of the Parekh report going to press, the Government declared that they are committed to creating one nation … [where] every colour [is] a good colour … every member of every part of society able to fulfil their potential … racism is unacceptable and counteracted … everyone is treated according to their needs and rights … where racial diversity is celebrated".

A year is an eternity in politics—it was last year that I tabled this Question for debate—and events have overtaken my initial thoughts and my genuine search of the Government's agreement to consider the recommendations of the Parekh report. In doing so today, I cannot ignore the events of the past weeks in Oldham, Burnley, Bradford and Stoke-on-Trent. Now that we have the debris of these events lying in the ashes of deprivation, isolation, fear and hatred, I have to say that the evidence of inequality, discrimination and exclusion is so pervasive that it would be a dereliction of duty to the truth not to give it prominence.

In the period leading up to the prolonged election campaign, I had numerous conversations with many honourable and noble friends about the state of race relations. I said the same as has been said by many for more than 20 years and as was stated in the Parekh report: "Do something about the underachievement, the poor housing and education and apartheid in town halls and, above all, do something to redress the issue of representation and leadership not just in local and central government but, more importantly, in the boardrooms and on the quangos. And we need to widen participation in the decision-making structures of this country".

I also talked about the visits I made last year to the North of England and, as usual, I talked about Tower Hamlets. I have to say that I used the word "apartheid" on our doorsteps and raised serious questions about the effectiveness and performance of local authorities in engaging their citizens.

The past few weeks have revived all the fear, hopelessness and soul-searching of the 1980s when the Scarman report was left to rot on the shelf. What is the difference? None, according to the delegation I met yesterday from Oldham, Bradford and Burnley. Twenty years ago young people claimed that they were defending their community and they make the same claim today. And the allegation made 20 years ago was—and it still stands—that the police failed to protect the community. Throw in racially segregated estates, schooling, unemployment and lack of access to prosperity on your doorstep and you have a recipe for grief and tension.

After decades of hard work, it must be admitted that community work in Britain is in disarray. There is a big gap between intention and outcome and promise and delivery. Oldham and Bradford are today, as they were 25 years ago—ghettoised housing and education. Yesterday, the members of the delegation said that there is no shortage of initiatives but there are few tangible results. Their despair is made even worse by a feeling of marginalisation and a lack of any genuine partnership with the authorities. They say that the experts who rule all the decision-making structures have no affinity of any kind with their plight and dilemma.

The Parekh report is an important milestone in the collection of evidence on which to base a strategy for some equalisation of services and for addressing some of the questions arising out of the events of last week. Anyone who remembers the reception the report received when it was launched in October last year should have heard alarm bells ringing about the state of race relations in Britain.

Some of the extreme media response was the usual blurring of the fine line between advocating balance and freedom of speech for everyone and damning confession of belief in true blue history and justification of the "rivers of blood" speech. But if perception is two-thirds of the truth, two-thirds of the country must have been totally confused about the subsequent discussion on Britishness. The same media, throughout last week, remained trapped in its own definition of "freedom of expression" and raised new heights by giving a platform to the defence fascism.

Suddenly every newspaper and journalist wants to give the so-called "Cambridge-educated fascist" a platform. Really, my Lords, the "old boys' network" works even for those who are advocating race and religious hatred. The master prosecutor sat fixated in his chair allowing viewers to believe that the "Cambridge-educated fascist" had the upper hand. I hear that in response to complaints from the CRE, the BBC's explanation was that it had given the matter careful consideration and it was duty-bound to be fair, even though it may find some of what it has to broadcast unpalatable.

The comments of politicians and the reporting of the incidents in the media dramatically highlighted the phenomenon of bipartisan political consensus on race. Furthermore, it demonstrated that there is no dialogue between those who make decisions and those beneath them.

An editorial in the Yorkshire Post of 12th July reminded its readers of the words of one Marsha Singh, who in the 1980s defended Asian activists who had stockpiled petrol bombs for use against the National Front and who was now making a plea for the police to be given water cannon to quell the predominantly Muslim rioters. And now the Member for Keighley has similarly broken with old socialist Labour rhetoric, and perhaps even risked the wrath of the Labour Whip, by calling for restrictions on the influx of husbands and wives from the subcontinent who cannot speak English. Now, wait a minute, we are not talking about the "river of blood" or the dark days of the cricket test. Are we not referring to second and third generation British citizens?

These are trying times for our good will and our Government and it is time for a genuine and deep-rooted assessment of community relations in our country; time for bold action. For a long time, individuals in the Labour Party such as myself have argued that efforts aimed at creating modern Britain need to go beyond the rhetoric and tokenism of past years. Just when we think that there is progress, we dig ourselves into a corner where even Enoch Powell may not have dared go; making a sin and a crime of not speaking English.

Coming from one of the wealthiest parts of London, I despair every time I come across the frustration, sense of helplessness and marginalisation that people within my own community continue to feel. It is not that money has not been poured in, but that the division has continued to be widened; ghettos have effectively placed their people into an apartheid system of governance; and the race relations organisations have become more elitist and have failed to become more inclusive. We are no longer talking about immigrant communities but about second and third generation British citizens. That is where the Parekh report's recommendations in their fullest are applicable. Perhaps the Minister will say why he believes the democratic movement of our country has missed these young people who have been burning their community, smashing it, and making a mockery of democracy.

The young people of Bradford and Oldham came to London yesterday seeking to retrieve their hopes. We have to signal that hope, fairness and justice. The problems in the North of England affect all young people; the lack of jobs and prosperity, poor quality housing with racism just added on. Only the fascists are gaining from the violence that has occurred. The solutions lie in establishing dialogue. The Parekh report is a testimony to the many possibilities. The British citizens of Bradford and Oldham are seeking explanations and justice, not condemnation.

Under the new Race Relations (Amendment) Act 2000, public bodies must work through their statutory functions to eliminate unlawful racial discrimination, direct and indirect, and, most poignantly for the moment, to promote good race relations across and between people from all backgrounds.

These are trying times. Ultimately, the choice is stark. Difference can continue and citizens be damned, or the diversity of all our communities can be embraced, for the failure to be wise may lead to an abyss from which none of us can claim victory. The recent Bradford race review could apply to any place I have mentioned so far with far-reaching consequences for the Government. The necessity for reversing the segregation and apartheid in the heart of our democracies is imperative and we cannot stand by and allow the destruction of communities to continue.

The Parekh and Lawrence reports give us a means of putting long-standing rhetoric into meaningful action. The Parekh report is not just a statement on race relations in Britain, but raises questions about the legitimacy of a significant group of British citizens hitherto denied equal rights in Britain. It is none of us who occupy these Benches, but those who occupy the ghettos of Bradford, Burnley, Oldham and Tower Hamlets.

7.39 p.m.

Baroness Park of Monmouth

My Lords, I am grateful for the opportunity to debate this interesting report. I resisted with great difficulty a wish also to speak about Bradford, but I believed that I did not know enough about it. The report contains some interesting ideas, notably a recognition that, it is legitimate to bar female circumcision, forced marriages and repressive and unequal treatment of women. even though these practices may enjoy cultural authority in certain communities". It also recognises that society, may rightly insist that parents should not deny full-time education or opportunities for self-development to their daughters". I feel strongly about that. When I was principal of Somerville, to which from time to time clever Asian girls applied to read medicine or law in particular, because it was then a single sex college, and thus acceptable to Indian or Muslim fathers, I visited many comprehensives to meet such girls and encourage them to apply. But at one large school I found no girls in the sixth form. The head explained that, naturally, they had been withdrawn by their fathers at the age of 13 to go into purdah and then to be sent back to their villages in Pakistan to marry and bring back with them young husbands who often spoke no English.

I asked what the girls felt about it. They were, after all, British subjects who were entitled, and required by law, to stay at school until the age of 16. I was told that they had begged to be allowed to stay but the local council felt that it was vital to respect the culture of their community. I said then, as I say now, that we cannot hope to achieve a healthy, integrated society while such procedures are tolerated and even encouraged. Those young women have been excluded from their rights as citizens and their children will suffer too. Therefore, I warmly agree with the report's view on that issue and its suggestion that, a more ceremonious form of welcome for new British citizens—as in the US—might help everyone to reflect on the value of citizenship and to appreciate diversity". However, I regard some of the rest of the report as misguided, not least because it has confused expression of the proper indignation that some members of ethnic minorities are entitled to feel over perceived injustices, which need recognition, and letting itself be used as a vehicle for intemperate, untrue and unjust attacks. I want to know when we, colonised three-fifths of the world with unspeakable barbarism, occasioning several holocausts in the process". One wonders whether the Commonwealth thinks that.

The report's eight pages of recommendations include such proposals as demanding that the Qualifications and Standards Authority should require that all exam boards offer only syllabuses in which it is possible to gain at least a C grade at each tier and that all schools monitor tier entry by ethnicity. The issue should not be to demand special treatment for members of ethnic minorities, which all those with spirit will resent, but a major investment in good teaching right across the board in areas where children, black and white, live in bad circumstances. They need to be taught together. How else will they ever become truly British? They need to be taught in English because they are all citizens of this country, and they need to be taught an equal pride in its past and future. That does not prevent those with family ties to other cultures and histories from learning to be proud of them too. The Poles who settled here after the war have carefully taught their children their history and culture, but it should not be to the exclusion of their loyalty to the country whose citizens they are.

We are speaking of the needs of some 6 per cent of the population which is an important group that is capable of enriching our society in terms of literature, music and many other things, but I suggest that the report should be more concerned with how to encourage it to integrate than to demand that every institution and business—every part of society—should be policed to ensure that ritual numbers of members of ethnic minority groups are to be found there. It urges that in any one year for the next five to six years a t least one-sixth of new Members of this House should be from Asian and black community backgrounds. I value the presence of the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, because of his great wisdom. I value the noble Baroness, Lady Uddin, for her work among women and her community in general. But each happens to be a member of an ethnic group, just as hereditary Peers are valued not for their birth but their knowledge of forestry, medicine or the arts.

The report is full of restrictive and even punitive proposals, such as that broadcasters should be required to provide statistics broken down by ethnicity and gender in relation to grades and categories, such as producer, editor and camera operator, and by management level. That is only one such restrictive and prescriptive requirement. When asked whether she felt proud of being a great woman writer, Iris Murdoch replied that she was proud to be a writer. The clever Asian and black graduates of Somerville have made successful lives on the same basis; they are neither gender nor race-conscious.

Finally, I believe that to confuse patriotism with nationalism shows a failure to understand the nature of the people of this country. We are justly proud of much that our forebears did, just as any nation is, and critical of other things. Robert Gardiner, a very great Ghanaian who became head of the Economic Commission for Africa and a good friend of mine, said that the British left two infinitely valuable legacies behind in the countries that they colonised: the rule of law and the English language. Our greatest opponents, men like Gandhi, Nehru, Nyerere and the Zulu chiefs, respected us even as they fought for their independence, and men and women from the Indian sub-continent, Africa and the Caribbean were proud to fight by our side against a common enemy.

The report quotes a young woman as saying that, Britain is populated with many races but the feeling that the whites reign supreme never goes away". Since 94 per cent of the population—among them many who were originally Poles, Czechs, Latvians and others, not just the deplored English—are white, this does not seem unreasonable. What matters is that we are all equal as citizens. We all have the vote and a voice in a free society. We must fight injustice, poverty and cultural divisiveness wherever we see it and ensure that all our people have an equal chance of education, employment and freedom of worship. While we must work to resist injustice, the authors of this report should understand that they will not achieve it by attacking our national character and pride m our history. I am tempted to end with the old cockney saying, If you know a better 'ole, go to it".

7.46 p.m.

Baroness Whitaker

My Lords, we should thank not only my noble friend Lady Uddin for securing this debate and for the depth of experience that she brought to her introduction of it but also my noble friend Lord Parekh who took time off from pressing academic work to chair, on a voluntary basis, the commission which produced this brilliantly analytical but also practical report. I declare an interest as a trustee of the Runnymede Trust, the parent body of the commission.

On publication of this report, the media concentrated on their own misreading of what remains a seminal analysis of the nature—its tensions and glories—of life in multi-ethnic Britain., and largely ignored the range of expert recommendations on how to secure a fairer and more harmonious and productive future.

I shall concentrate on the employment recommendations. The distinguished black American academic, William Julius Wilson, proposed that paying attention to the poor would incidentally and without backlash deal with racial discrimination. But the stark facts of race discrimination in employment are race-specific. They are not poverty-specific.

The Higher Education Funding Council's report last April showed that black and Asian graduates are up to three times as likely to be unemployed as white graduates. The skin colour of graduates dwarfs all other variables put together, and this is in the context of proportionately more graduates—about 12 per cent—than among white people.

If we look more generally at all kinds of work, the position is no different, except that the various communities within our minorities are more sharply differentiated. Men of Bangladeshi and rural Pakistani family origin—a common background in Oldham, Burnley and Bradford—had, at the last Labour Force Survey, a 24 per cent unemployment rate, compared with the overall national rate of under 6 per cent. But the unemployment rate for men of Indian background is, at only 7 per cent, close to that of white men. Women of Afro-Caribbean background are less likely to be unemployed than their menfolk, particularly young men. There are obviously different factors at work here—perhaps different local school standards, different family patterns and the decline of traditional industries. This has also had an effect on the employment of our Irish minority. But these different factors add up to a single unfair outcome, evident in getting jobs, in earnings and in levels of promotion. Is not this a cause of shame to any patriot?

The best recent thing the Government have done to tackle this dangerous unfairness is the Race Relations (Amendment) Act's new duty to be accountable for promoting race equality, as my noble friend Lady Uddin said. This was a great step forward by my right honourable friend the Home Secretary's predecessor. It goes far to implement the Parekh report's recommendations in the public sector. We could with advantage include the chartered professional associations, in respect of their members. But the requirement does not apply to the private sector.

The report proposes similar provisions for the private sector. They show the hand 'of Professor Bob Hepple QC. I cannot do justice to his thoughtful and detailed measures in the time available, but I would add that the Runnymede Trust's work on the FTSE 100 companies found that only 27 monitored their workforce by ethnicity and only four set targets for fair representations. The former chairman of the Fair Employment Commission for Northern Ireland has described how, since companies were required to report the percentage of Protestant and Catholic employees—only report, my Lords; no restrictive requirements—after such reporting, Catholic participation in the workforce rose until it was only 2 per cent less than their workforce proportion as a whole. Law has been helpful here I suggest.

The report's recommendations for labour market programmes prompts one to ask: what was the fate of the Employment Service's "Closing the Gap" project to remedy its lack of success with New Deal entrants from ethnic minorities, even those with higher qualifications? The Social Exclusion Unit recommended a year ago that the New Deal should test the effectiveness of positive action training. Has this worked? Have modern apprenticeships now remedied their racial imbalance? The European Union funds the "EQUAL" Community Initiative, to promote innovation in combating labour market discrimination. How has the UK used this opportunity?

I understand, from when I worked in the then Employment Department, reluctance to festoon coherent standards like Investors in People with added requirements. But is compliance with the standard now interpreted with regard to race equity? And I also remember, when I was chair of Camden's Racial Equality Council, we could not get the Single Regeneration Budget to recognise that its outputs should include fairer employment chances for London's minorities. Does it now address race discrimination?

Finally, I ask my noble friend the Minister, in responding to the employment recommendations of the Parekh report, will he say how the new work of the Performance and Innovation Unit on ethnic minority communities will deal with discrimination in employment?

7.53 p.m.

Baroness Flather

My Lords, I, too, wish to acknowledge a debt to the noble Lord, Lord Parekh. However, in saying that, I see him as a guru of race relations who, over time, has helped me with his insight and his wisdom. I only wish that at this stage I could whole-heartedly subscribe to the concept in the report, which, sadly, I cannot. My vision of British society is very different from the one that the Parekh report tries to put forward.

Seventeen years ago we were working on a report on the education of ethnic minority children. It was called the Swann report. I remember that I shocked my fellow members by changing the introductory chapter called the "Nature of Society". If your Lordships who are interested in this subject have not read that chapter, I would commend it to you. That was 17 years ago. In that I put forward a vision of British society as being one where the mainstream culture will evolve and change and encompass other cultures and their diversities. It will not be pockets of multi-culturism, but it will be the mainstream British culture which will undergo the change.

After 17 years, even I am surprised at how much of that has happened. We only have to look at dress, food, music, dance and sport. Everywhere there is diversity. There is richness. There is a shared belonging. It is something which actually fills me with a huge deal of hope for the future.

Cultures are dynamic. When they come into contact with each other they evolve. Any part of our culture which we value we shall maintain and share with others. That applies both to the mainstream and minority cultures. As they rub against each other they evolve, grow and become an event in themselves.

It was very unfortunate that there was an attack on the term British and the concept of being British. Unlike most of the people here of Indian origin, I am probably the only one who actually remembers and grew up in India when it was part of the British Empire. I remember how unbearable the racism was. I remember the marches. I remember all kinds of things. There is no doubt that the original concept of being British was racist because we were the British subjects, although we accepted that at the time. But there was definitely a racist connotation. But now we have to take back that concept. We have to make sure that we are included in that Britishness, not excluded. By excluding ourselves from Britishness we do no justice to ourselves or our second and third generations.

If we have no concept of Britishness, what is our concept of a cohesive society, of a country and of belonging to some place? Our children do not belong to their country of origin. If they are not going to belong to this country, where are they going to belong? We came here to improve our future. What right have we to ignore entirely the attitudes and opinions of the majority? We have no right. We have a duty also to acknowledge and change to fit in with what this society wants. That is not to say that we have to forego what we value. It is not necessary. This society does not demand that of us. It does not demand that we reject our culture. It does not demand that we reject our religion.

Certainly, it demands that we reject some of the nastier things mentioned about discrimination against women. The report should have gone much further than it did. Those are all against the law; and we all have to obey the law. Where are the recommendations for treating ethnic minority women with respect and with equality? These are matters that are absolutely against the law. I see no plethora, if I may use that word, no huge number of recommendations to protect the women from the discrimination they have to suffer every day of their lives in minority communities.

The noble Baroness, Lady Whitaker, read out some statistics. If I remember correctly, she said that Indian men, and possibly women, have the same kind of unemployment rate as white people. Why is that the case? Is it not because there is better educational achievement and a better understanding of what is required of them? Is there no responsibility on the minorities to do something about their own situation? I do not believe that one can have rights without responsibilities.

We have heard that in Bradford there is a great division between the different communities. I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Uddin, that we have to fight against that separation. What is this about paying more money to community leaders? Why do our third generation need spokesmen who belong to the first generation? They have nothing in common with their young people who are fighting in Bradford.

My time is up. My vision of Britain is of a cohesive society that is open enough to enjoy and respect what is within us and where no one is treated as a separate or less good or less able person.

8.11 p.m.

Lord Hunt of Chesterton

My Lords, we are all grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Uddin, for initiating this debate on the Parekh report on the future of multi-ethnic Britain. I spent the first six years of my life in India. I have visited many countries in the Commonwealth and I have worked in universities with many colleagues from Asia and Africa. I have heard about some of the bad experiences they have had. But I am pleased that many have really appreciated coming to this country, and in ways that would surprise noble Lords. One of the most interesting examples was Japanese colleagues referring to the British culture of the Grand National. Some of my colleagues have even taken out British nationality.

I have a little experience of sonic of the extraordinary problems faced by our ethnic communities. In the 1960s my wife and I tried to get a flat. I put down on the application form where I was born. Noble Lords will not be surprised to learn that I completely failed to find a flat until I appeared and tried to get one in person. So I do know a little about what happens.

The Parekh report records a sombre situation in the UK, with the widespread feeling among ethnic minorities that the general ethos in this country is not sympathetic to their interests, their communities and their culture. This debate is particularly timely following the recent urban riots in Lancashire and Yorkshire and the realisation that the remedies must have several elements—more resources, new governmental and community organisations, new ideas for running business, education and government and, above all, fresh approaches to how different ethnic communities see each other. I should like to comment on those points and make some suggestions.

In order to give the House an idea about an ethnic community, I once showed some colleagues from the Philippines The Penguin Book of Jokes. They said, "Ah, ethnic jokes". Of course, they were all English jokes; but they were very ethnic. The report refers to the experience of and the policies adopted by other countries. I know something about that subject. Inadvertently, by turning right instead of left in New York, I witnessed the riots in the United States in the 1960s. I was not a very good navigator. It was a frightening experience which I hoped not to see in the UK. I believed that, with our welfare state, our special provision for the poorest communities and, most of all, our gun-free culture, it would never happen in the UK. Unfortunately, I think I was wrong.

Our present Government are greatly increasing the funding and focusing of welfare provision but ethnic groups quite rightly expect more. One hopes that we can also move back to more gun-free policing, following recent legislation. The UK is learning from the organisational measures taken in the United States to overcome some of those difficulties. The Government have taken welcome steps which one hopes will be extended and taken in new directions. A determined effort will be required to change bureaucratic rules.

In school education, the Government are allowing funding of new types of school. The House has heard, particularly from the Bishops' Bench, about some of the results of improvements in that direction. In higher education, we heard today how universities are being funded to bring school students from ethnic minority groups into colleges over the summer period to familiarise them with the advantages and enjoyment of higher education. Such initiatives of internships for minority groups, as recommended in the report, could be vastly extended but would not require huge additional expenditure. It would be a highly effective use of funding and it could be provided to government, agencies, non-governmental organisations and business. As a director of a small company which certainly employs interns, some of whom are from minority groups, I believe that such a scheme is practical. In the United States it is standard that everyone having a research grant or having funding from the government for a research project would have some element of that kind. It is a matter of looking at all the forms and applications used by quangos and other organisations. I therefore believe that that recommendation in the report could be implemented.

There is considerable scope for positive discrimination along such lines. The report recommends that government agencies could do more to recruit in that direction. I believe that the report is quite right. As a former chief executive of a government agency, I encouraged my personnel staff—it was something of a surprise to begin with—to advertise in minority newspapers. We were also encouraged by circulars from the Ministry of Defence to have representatives of ethnic minorities and women on our board. We did that. We just needed the letter and we did it. But the report underlines that much more could be done. I wonder how many senior managers in government really have such an obligation in their job description. It is certainly not in the framework document.

As I noted this week in the International Development Bill, government departments and agencies have enormous powers to direct their purchasing of services. As a civil servant, I struggled with a previous government on that issue. A Minister in that government said that that was the kind of thing they did in France, not the UK. Such a break with traditional bureaucratic methods must happen and such powers could be used to purchase from companies employing or owned by minority groups, whether ethnic, disabled or poor communities in overseas countries. At the moment it is exceedingly difficult with the best will in the world for an executive to apply those concepts. That has to change from the very top.

As the report emphasises, the media are essential. There should be more financial and technical assistance to minority groups to allow them to develop their own media. That would empower them, as happens all around the world.

Finally, asylum is a key issue. It is essential that our leaders should acknowledge the enormous contribution to this country made by minority groups. There has been such acknowledgement in today's debate. It is important that that should happen. I should like to draw an invidious distinction between the recent visit of President Bush to New York—President Bush would not be particularly welcome on these Benches—and a highly regrettable event during the general election when the leader of the Conservatives went to Dover. During President Bush's visit he spoke to a group of people who had just emigrated to America. He referred to the enormous value of those people to that country. He greeted and met some of those who had just arrived. But the leader of the Conservatives did not go to Dover to meet new asylum seekers. He went there to make an announcement. It was not a helpful announcement.

I look forward to hearing from the Government what plans they have to introduce new arrangements at Folkestone. If the United States Government can, as the Tube advertisements for Air Lingus tell us, have immigration facilities at Dublin Airport, surely the UK should have immigration offices in Calais. That would avoid the nightly scenes of people crawling through cages and risking electrocution on railway lines. It is a desperate situation. I look forward to the Minister's reply.

8.10 p.m.

Lord Taylor of Warwick

My Lords, we cannot shake hands with a clenched fist. The recent riots that we witnessed in Bradford, Oldham and other towns can only damage race relations. Riots grab headlines, but when the TV cameras move on, it is the local community that is left to sweep up the debris. The riots caused millions of pounds' worth of damage. People who fight fire with fire usually end up with ashes.

But these episodes are a warning which we must heed. If we cannot prosper as one nation, in time we may become no nation. Racist groups thrive on ignorance. They would have us believe that the riots were caused by the inability of white and Asian communities to live together. That ignores factors such as unemployment and poverty which are major causes of the discontent. It is on such unhappy social conditions that the racist vultures target and feed.

I welcome the Parekh report on the future of multiethnic Britain. I pay tribute to the commitment which the noble Lord, Lord Parekh, and his colleagues clearly gave to producing this work. There is time to highlight only a few of the recommendations that I support. For example, I believe that a truly independent mechanism to investigate complaints made against the police is long overdue. This in itself may also encourage more black and Asian recruitment, which is needed in the police service.

The report rightly urges deeper thinking about the policy of exclusion of pupils from schools. This is a particular issue in the black community. A balance needs to be struck between maintaining school discipline and offering support to pupils who display problems. The majority of youngsters that I have represented in criminal courts had already been expelled or excluded from school, with little or nothing to occupy their time. Criminal prevention is the best crime prevention. It is easier to build strong children than to repair broken men.

As vice-president of the National Small Business Bureau, I welcome the call for more support for black and Asian business. This must incorporate a review of banking and mortgage codes. Building a business is not easy, whatever your colour or your background, but racism is an added factor which can inhibit growth and enterprise.

I share the view expressed in the report that publicly funded organisations like the BBC need to encourage the promotion of suitably qualified black and Asian employees to positions of authority. Some years ago I was a television producer at the BBC. I did wonder, sometimes, whether the building I worked in was called "White City" on the basis of the fact that I appeared to be the only black person working there above kitchen level. At the time, little interest was shown towards encouraging ethnic minorities into mainstream programme making. I left the BBC, rather disillusioned, to return to the law. Things have improved at the BBC since then, but a great deal more needs to be done.

I agree with the call for the asylum system to be improved. Reducing the delay in dealing with cases should be a top priority. It has been too easy for asylum to become a political football, especially during election campaigns. By reducing the inefficiencies in the system, there is more chance of the main issues being debated fairly.

The report rightly urges that more should be done to make public the positive aspects of immigration. The issues of asylum, immigration and race relations are easily intertwined and confused. Journalists, broadcasters and political parties all have a responsibility to shed light, not heat.

None of the mainstream parties can feel satisfied about its track record when dealing with these issues. But I shall say a brief word about the Conservative Party. This is designed to help and not to harm. Whoever becomes the next leader, the Conservative Party needs to take a long look at itself in the mirror. It needs to ask itself whether it is ready to extend the hand of welcome, rather than point the finger of blame, towards ethnic minorities.

While there is a legitimate distinction between the issues of race relations and asylum, the tabloid tone adopted over recent years by some Conservative spokesmen has not been helpful. Before the last general election, I criticised the Tory leadership over its weak response to the racist comments of one of its own MPs. Some commentators were convinced that I was being fed these lines by Millbank. They were totally wrong. These are my own views. If some in the Conservative Party now choose to rebuke me rather than heed my words, it will again waste a chance to modernise and broaden its appeal. You cannot win until you know why you lost.

In the 1980s there were riots in places like Brixton and Tottenham. I was one of the defence barristers involved in the court cases which followed the Handsworth riots. It may well be that the crisis of identity which some young Afro-Caribbeans felt then is being repeated among their Asian counterparts now. But it is important to note the many examples of success in those same areas since that time. Local people have worked hard and have turned things around. We need to create a bank of best practice of what works in the inner cities.

Finally, I hope that the Government and other decision-makers will learn from the Parekh report. Success is a journey, not a destination. So we must not forget the earlier submissions in the Swann, Scarman and Macpherson reports. Those are all valuable, eloquent studies. But ultimately the finest eloquence is action.

8.17 p.m.

Lord Greaves

My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Baroness, Lady Uddin, for introducing a debate on this interesting report, one which has been produced not only by the noble Lord, Lord Parekh, but also by a commission containing an impressive list of members. My only regret is that we do not have more time in which to debate the matter. However, the contributions that we have heard from all sides of the House well vindicate the decision to table this Unstarred Question.

Under the present circumstances, there is a topical temptation to spend our time discussing Bradford, Oldham and Burnley. The noble Baroness, Lady Uddin, the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Warwick, and others have rightly referred to the matter. All that I wish to say is that the report of the noble Lord, Lord Ouseley, focuses specifically on the situation in Bradford. I hope that the House will find an opportunity to debate that report as soon as possible after the Summer Recess. The job for the summer facing those of us who might have a little influence in their local areas is to stand firm against any rise in racism and fascism in our communities and to talk to and work with others as much as we can to prevent what may be seen as justifiable anger by young people from erupting into counter-productive and destructive riots.

I wish to address my main comments to the Parekh report itself. It contains two distinct sections. Parts 2 and 3, covering "Issues and Institutions" and "Strategies for Change", culminate in a checklist of 140 recommendations divided into 13 groups. Each of those groups would sustain a debate in this House. Many of the proposals are extremely sensible. The noble Baroness, Lady Whitaker, referred to some of the proposals made under the section covering employment. Some of them are debatable and should be debated further. In such a list, inevitably one or two are nonsense. But as a whole, it is an extremely valuable checklist and I hope that the Government will take the opportunity to consider the list and decide what they wish to do about each recommendation.

The interesting section of the report is contained in Part 1 which seeks to set out a vision of a multi-racial society which is based on basic human rights and which will work. The vision is interesting and worthy of careful consideration. It is a vision of, communities of citizens and communities", based on, a pluralistic human rights culture". These concepts are relatively new and deserve careful consideration. The report rightly emphasises quality and diversity and the concept of people being equal but different—or, perhaps, equal and different.

Back in the 1950s and 1960s, the debate among liberals—I use the word with a small "l", across all parties—was about the concepts of assimilation and integration between immigrant communities and host communities. Integration, quite rightly, came out on top because it accepts that people and communities are different.

The report challenges us to a new debate between "integration", which it describes as a liberal theory of society as a "community of citizens", and "pluralist theory", which it describes as a "community of communities". The report argues for a combination of the two. Reading between the lines, one gets the distinct impression that there were some fairly vigorous debates within the commission on these matters.

As a liberal—with a small "l" and a capital "L"—I believe that fundamental human rights belong to individuals. Communities as such do not possess rights; any rights that they do possess, they possess because of the rights possessed by the sum of their members. For example, there is a reference on page 37 of the report to the "rights of communities". There are major question marks about Part 1 of the report which, at the very least, deserve debate.

The diversity of individuals, which many of us welcome—the more the better—may follow from their membership of communities, or it may be that some of us are a bit eccentric. The report rightly points out that people must be free to leave their communities if they wish to do so. But fundamental human rights are not different for different people. What we do with our human rights may well be very different—and that may lead us to have very different lives—but fundamental human rights are not different for different people.

Some parts of the report appear not to accept that and try to suggest otherwise. For example, paragraph 7.3 states: Human rights need therefore to be interpreted and applied in a culturally sensitive manner"— which I do not think any of us would disagree with. It goes on to state: and may sometimes entail different responses in different individual cases". I have collected a whole series of quotes from Part 1 of the report which suggest that there is an interesting debate to be had about the nature of human rights in relation to communities. I say no more than that, although the suggested declaration of cultural diversity on page 277 seems to be a good basis for such a debate.

One of the difficulties with the report is that the interesting discussion in Part 1 does not relate clearly to the checklists in Part 2, which seem to have been put together by subject specialists rather than related to the rest of the report. That is a problem with the report itself.

However, I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Parekh, and his team have done us all a service in stimulating a debate on vital issues such as what we mean by "national identity" in the modern world; what we mean by the "nature of community"; what are the fundamental rights of individuals within a multicultural society; what is the nature of a multi-cultural state serving a multi-cultural society; and what is the nature of the links between racism and inequality in general. And that leads us back to the problems in places such as Bradford and Burnley.

The report is stimulating; in places it is troubling—it certainly troubles me as a liberal and causes me to think hard—and in places I think it is wrong. However, it would be very surprising if a report of this nature was not wrong in some places. The important thing is that it is, I hope, the start of a debate. I hope that the issues which it raises will continue to be debated, not only in your Lordships' House but widely within this country. It addresses issues which are vital to the future of this country.

8.24 p.m.

Viscount Bridgeman

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Uddin, for initiating the debate, and the noble Lord, Lord Parekh, for a thought-provoking report. I am very pleased that my noble friend Lord Taylor of Warwick finds that it has many positive aspects.

The theme of positive discrimination runs right through the report. In my view, this is, in reality, a very blunt instrument. Its effect is to divide people into categories when the desire is to unite them. Applied in a racial context, where the categories are difficult to define at the margins, it can act as a disincentive for the integration of communities to evolve naturally, and it can provoke unnecessary resentment from parties excluded from it. I do not say it can never be used, but it is, in my view, a way of last resort.

I deplore the recommendations of the report that, for instance, 30 per cent of the Members of this House appointed in any one year should be of ethnic origin. Applied to your Lordships, it could diminish the standing of the significant body of Members of your Lordships' House of ethnic minority background who make such a distinguished contribution to its working and, if I may say so, the high standing in this regard of the House. Their ethnic origin is sometimes relevant to the contributions they make, but often it is not at all, and their high standing rests on their other contributions as much as on their representative capacity.

How far are we to go? Is the House to have appropriate quotas of those who regard themselves as Cornish or Welsh or Jewish? Are we to distinguish between the origins of the Chinese who live here? And what about the Americans among us. Logically, I suppose, that any group which had a one-690th part of the population should have a Peer.

Baroness Whitaker

My Lords, I hesitate to interrupt the noble Lord, but does he accept that the report nowhere advocates quotas—that is, positive discrimination—but targets, that is, aiming at a balance.

Viscount Bridgeman

My Lords, I accept the comment of the noble Baroness. Thank you.

If minority groups are to be over-represented, as the 30 per cent target suggests, it will be difficult to fit us English in.

I note that the report specifically recommends that the Irish community should be included in such positive discrimination. This is in respect of health service bodies. All I would say is that the Irish have been established in this country in numbers since the famine 160 years ago. They are usually not in communities. The Anglo-Irish relationship at personal level is a pleasant fact of life. The suggestion that, after this period, they should be the subject of positive discrimination, I find frankly patronising.

My noble friend Lady Flather referred to the concept of Britishness, which the report deplores. In my view, that is evidence of the nanny state attitude. You are not allowed to use a perfectly acceptable word in the English language because, in the mouths of some, it has racist overtones. While there are manifestations of this in certain aspects of government policy elsewhere, which we deplore, certainly I and my party agree with the comments of the then Home Secretary, Mr Jack Straw, in an interview with the Daily Mail on 12th October last, where he made a very robust comment on the report. He said: Unlike the Runnymede Trust I firmly believe that there is a future for Britain and Britishness. I do not accept the arguments of those on the Nationalistic right or the liberal left that Britain as a cohesive whole is dead". We all take pride in seeing British athletes of whatever ethnic origin win at the Olympics or at football. In the same interview, Mr Straw went on to say: I am disappointed that the commission is so grudging in recognising what we have achieved already. I do not I regret find the Runnymede Trust of particular help in that regard". I turn now to the sad events of the recent riots in Bradford and other northern cities. These have brought into focus the one word which is central to the debate—namely, "multi-culturalism". If there is one thing to come out of these events, it is the need to strike the delicate balance between intensive segregation on the one hand and total assimilation on the other. The former leads to the ghetto; the latter to extinction of national subcultures. As an article in this week's issue of the Economist points out, for a society to be truly multicultural some degree of assimilatory mixing is necessary. This is borne out again by the report chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Ouseley, on the situation in Bradford. It is certainly a vindication of the stance taken by Mr Ray Honeyford in his campaign to desegrate the Bradford schools, for which he lost his job.

My party opposes racism in any form. We believe in an inclusive Britain. To achieve that, we need an approach based on the British tradition of tolerance one of respecting people for their character rather than their colour—not an approach based on a panoply of patronising and politically correct nonsense. While we agree with a number of the recommendations in the report, we believe that there is a missed opportunity to highlight the very real progress that has been made in making Britain more inclusive.

In conclusion, I again thank the noble Lord, Lord Parekh, and his committee for this comprehensive report. It has prompted a very British response—a debate on the subject. I shall be interested to hear the Minister's reply.

8.31 p.m.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Rooker)

My Lords, we all owe a debt of gratitude to my noble friend Lady Uddin for introducing the debate, and to the noble Lord, Lord Parekh, and his team for preparing the report. This has been an interesting debate. I agreed with virtually every word of many contributions from both sides of the Chamber, although there has been no tension.

I must say one thing to my noble friend Lady Uddin. I have not yet read all of the detailed contributions of my honourable friend in another place, Ann Cryer; however, I did hear her on the radio and I agreed with everything she said. She was not talking about compulsory English; but she was talking about importing poverty—as has happened in my former constituency. She made a fair point. It touches also on some of the points raised by the noble Baroness Lady Park. She referred to what happens to young girls of 13 or 14 who think that they are being sent on holiday; they do not know that they are being sent abroad in order to return with a husband. I have dealt with dozens, if not hundreds, of such cases over the years. It is a tragedy. It is a question of civil rights.

Not wishing to employ a stereotype, there is a divide in terms of educational achievement. The noble Baroness, Lady Flather, is absolutely right. I did not note down all the figures mentioned by my noble friend Lady Whitaker, but they indicate that those of Indian origin are close to whites in terms of educational achievement as opposed to members of other ethnic groups. We must ask why that is. We cannot lump people together. Whites are not a homogeneous group. When I use the word "Asians", I do not know what I am talking about. They are not a homogeneous group. On the sub-continent they are split between different countries, different faiths and different cultures. Their religions come from an absolutely different standpoints. Lumping people together is a big mistake, particularly when we white leaders do it because we think it is politically correct. Going along with political correctness is part of the cause of the problem.

I was at Aston University yesterday, where I studied 40 years ago. They brought me in to correct my misdemeanours in the past and to give me an honorary degree. The multicultural efforts of the student population in which I took part bore testimony to the fantastic variation that we have from all social groups.

But let us not beat about the bush. Only three or four years ago, a young women in my constituency said to me: "Jeff, some of my friends are not allowed to put the milk bottles on the doorstep. My mum is not allowed to travel on the bus to town on her own". There are girls who are not allowed swimming lessons, even fully clothed, with female instructors. That is a denial of civil rights—which are non-negotiable. In relation to domestic violence the Parekh report states that there is a non-negotiable bottom line: people's individual civil rights. Then you can build around those rights and maintain the culture and the heritage as one generation succeeds another; greater assimilation is inevitable. You maintain the culture of diversity; you maintain the religious differences. But the bottom, non-negotiable line is the civil rights of our fellow citizens.

I shall not defend political correctness. I never have done. It has caused me a few problems. The noble Lord, Lord Taylor, and I once walked the streets together in Perry Bar in Birmingham. We did not see a divide; we saw exactly the points that the noble Lord made. People have gradually built a way out of the difficulties that occurred in the Handsworth riots.

There is no question that we must do a great deal better in terms of economic performance and job discrimination. There is clearly rampant discrimination in some areas. Some people think that it is not worth obtaining qualifications. They make a big mistake.

I do want to cause anyone to take umbrage, but two speakers referred to asylum and immigration as though they were interconnected. They are completely different. President Bush did not go to welcome asylum seekers; he went to welcome new immigrants to the American economy. That is exactly what we ought to do, would do, and do do. But it is a massive mistake to equate asylum with immigration. The two are not the same. We must run twin-track policies. Mixing them up, as happens in the media, is causing massive problems for communities that are settled here and for those who come to join them, whether under the terms of work permits or settlement permits for marriage or merely to join their families. That has nothing to do with seeking asylum. We must never make the connection between seeking asylum and economic prosperity; otherwise, we could rule out those who genuinely fulfil the United Nations' requirements for asylum. That is what it is about. It is not about economic migration. We must adjust to that. We must examine our own economy, as other countries in Europe are doing, and plan for that; but we must not use asylum as the back door for doing that. If we are not careful, we shall make the wrong decisions. As likely as not, we shall not give asylum to those who can genuinely meet the demands of the United Nations resolution which are uppermost in our mind. That is the centre of asylum policy. We are not confusing the two. The present team at the Home Office is determined not to go down that road.

The noble Lord, Lord Taylor, referred to complaints against the police. I hope I have got this right, as I believe I said in my maiden speech, the police Bill that we shall bring forward this Session will set up a truly independent police complaints procedure. That has always been a bone of contention. The Bill is some way away from publication and it will probably go to the other House before it comes to this place, but it will certainly tackle that problem.

The noble Lord referred also to speeding up decisions. In one year, the number of decisions has risen from some 50,000 to 130,000. However, I must warn noble Lords that some people do not like decisions to be speeded up. By "decision" I mean a firm, quality decision; otherwise it does not work. But some in the industry do not like that. The inevitable consequence of speeding up decisions means that you have to face the consequences four-square: 80 per cent of applicants are found not to have a well-founded fear of persecution under the terms of the UN convention. As a result, action has to be taken. Some people preferred the old, inefficient approach, whereby sacks of mail remained unopened, the Home Office was incredibly inefficient, and no one knew about the matter, took any decisions, or read any papers for years. That situation is changing radically, but the consequences are such that it will make unpleasant reading for some.

The noble Baroness, Lady Park, touched on forced marriages. It goes without saying that there is no justification for this practice. I need go no further.

My noble friend Lady Whitaker asked specifically about the Performance Innovation Unit project. The project's central objective is to increase the achievement of ethnic minorities in the labour market; and to do it under a better and shared understanding of what are the current differentials within ethnic groups and what causes those differentials, drawing on the existing research. It will undertake an assessment of the effectiveness of different approaches to increasing the achievement of ethnic groups and will examine the impact of existing action by government, in the private and the voluntary sector.

We shall also consider a clear policy recommendation for building on existing work and adopting new approaches to address the causes. Indeed, that will help to develop a fresh intellectual policy approach to the issues regarding the ethnic minority differential performance in the labour market. The project will examine such issues as the role of employers, both public and private, in shaping the labour market, as well the role of private services—such as banks and financial institutions—the impact of discrimination, the effect of economic conditions, and working patterns. Those issues must be tackled. I expect the PIU report to be a really valuable document in that respect.

We are also considering the effect of the SRB, and its successor "Neighbourhood Renewal". The money—literally, hundreds of millions of pounds—is going into the 88 areas defined by the census information. In order to deliver, the money must have a consequence at the end of the process. Indeed, it will have to deliver to narrow the gap on many of the measures of disadvantage, worklessness, crime, health, skills, housing and the physical environment of some of these areas. We must tackle all of those issues. However, ultimately we shall want to know what difference the money made. It must make a difference to people's lives. We need, if you like, to look at the "footprints" of people's lives and see that they have been vastly improved by us through targeting resources in this way. We have found that the old way of spreading the money thinly did not work.

I hope that I dealt with the point made by my noble friend Lord Hunt. in fact, one of the issues raised was the work between the English and French regarding the Channel Tunnel. I shall be visiting Dover and Coquilles tomorrow to review some of these issues at first hand. We are doing everything that we can to work together in this difficult situation. There is no question about that. It is causing problems for both countries. It is causing great hardship for people. It is causing deaths: people are incredibly brave, but they are also incredibly stupid. Nevertheless, some people are pushed to such action because they have already spent so much money on getting this far. Therefore, they are now in bondage and have to take incredible risks.

The issue of positive discrimination was raised—I am sorry, but I have forgotten which speaker did so. I have considered the matter over the years, as, indeed, have many other people. All the projects come along with big new investment. You think, "Right, this is a great opportunity here to get local firms and local people involved. There will be new training for the community with this project". However, we come up against the problem in the process of having to address some of the rules from the European Union, especially if we are talking about large projects. We could not do it with the national indoor arena or the international convention centre in Birmingham. There is a difficulty with positive discrimination in that it can be held to be unlawful.

However, the Race Relations Act does allow us to take positive action in certain areas. Therefore, in those areas where it is possible to do so and where we can gain a big advantage from it, we want to ensure that we take such action. But, of course, there is nothing to stop companies in, say, Bradford and Burnley, or other parts of the country, investing in those areas. That point was made by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding, a few weeks ago when I made a Statement to the House. After the Liverpool riots, Michael Heseltine took a coach-load of businessmen to the area and asked, "Are your companies buying from these local subcontractors? Are they employing local labour?" By just asking the question, sometimes you can solve the problem. It does not need a government-driven plan to achieve that end. You have only to observe what cars the French people drive. It is almost ingrained in them. I do not believe that there is a law that requires them to drive Renaults and Citroens made in France, but they look at what is available on the market and draw the obvious conclusion.

The noble Lord, Lord Greaves, mentioned the report of the noble Lord, Lord Ouseley, on Bradford. We are extremely grateful, as, I am sure, is the whole House, for that report. I certainly look forward to the contributions that the noble Lord will make in this House. I am sure that he will bring great wisdom to our proceedings.

I turn to the report that forms the subject of this debate. I am well aware of some of the history involved; that is why I have not gone into the detail. I remember the publication of the report and the debate that followed; and, indeed, some of the newspaper headlines that were not very productive. Nevertheless, there were 130 recommendations, which, as a package, are broadly in line with what the Government are trying to do and have set out to achieve. I am not saying that that applies to every one of them, because there are the odd one or two that go right against what we are trying to do in respect of certain aspects of policy. But as regards what we are trying to achieve with the "Neighbourhood Renewal" strategy, with building citizenship and with community awareness in the national curriculum, we are bang on.

I understand that the previous Home Secretary met the chairman of the group that produced the report, my noble friend Lord Parekh. I know that my right honourable friend David Blunkett has already fixed a meeting for a specific date in September. There is no need for me to put the specific date on the record, but the meeting will take place in about the third week of September when we shall discuss the issues involved. I hope that I shall be present. During the intervening period, I am obviously prepared to discuss some of the issues that come from the report with both my noble friends and noble Lords on both sides of the House.

We shall certainly take forward the recommendations that we can, but I shall do more work on these issues than I have been able to accomplish in the short time that I have been at the Home Office. I have read only the press reports issued at the time that the report was published. I remember that the debate about Britishness took away the focus from some of the key issues, which I believe this House would want to take forward. Indeed, I am sure that the House would certainly want the Government to report back on what we are doing in this regard from time to time. The debate will not go away—rightly so.

Baroness Uddin

My Lords, before my noble friend sits down, perhaps I may express my thanks to him and to the other noble Lords who have taken part in this debate and made it most meaningful. On behalf of my noble friend Lord Parekh, perhaps I may tell the House that he was unable to attend today due to a longstanding commitment elsewhere.

House adjourned at thirteen minutes before nine o'clock.