| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
3.49 pm
Mr. Marsha Singh (Bradford, West): I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in this important debate. There have been some very good speeches, and I am sure that my speech will be entirely inadequate in comparison. I commend especially the speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Mr. Woodward). After hearing it, I am happy to accept him as my hon. Friend.
I am sure that hon. Members on both sides of the House will agree that racism is pernicious and evil. Racism distorts the life chances of individuals and of whole communities. It can, and does, lead to minorities living in fear. Worse, it leads to physical assaults and to death, as we have witnessed only too often in the United Kingdom.
Racism also, however, damages its perpetrators, locking them into a cage of hatred and twisted bitterness. However, that cage also locks them out--out of our multicultural society and world, with the opportunities on offer--by distorting their personalities and limiting their humanity. Racism, essentially, is a failure of both intelligence and humanity.
Racism is also a disaster for society. It actively promotes social disharmony. Racism, by freezing the opportunity available to some members of society, limits the possibilities of social development and progress.
The Race Relations Act 1976 was a giant step forward in protecting the rights of Britain's minorities, and in promoting the opportunities open to them. Britain can be proud of that Act and of the protection that it afforded minorities. Such protection does not exist for minorities elsewhere in Europe or in very many other parts of the world.
The 1976 Act itself was a consequence of something that is too easily dismissed--Britain's innate, genuine tolerance. The action that we took in 1976, before 1976 and after 1976--and the action that we shall take today--could succeed only by building on a spirit of good will and tolerance. Such tolerance exists in my city of Bradford, where people are daily, weekly, monthly and yearly making efforts to promote good race relations.
I also have every confidence in my police force, and in its efforts to build good race relations and to tackle racism. It would be a mistake if this debate were to go down the road--which it has not done so far--of attacking police. Police work in the most difficult circumstances and in the most awful situations. Quite often, the errors that they make in race relations occur as a consequence not of racism, but of a lack of cultural awareness and sensitivity. It is essential that, within any race relations programme, cultural sensitivity programmes should be made available to all our public servants, including police.
Playing the race card--shouting "racist" when it is not appropriate to do so--to avoid the consequences of one's own crimes or actions is as bad as institutional racism, direct racism or indirect racism. I hope that people who play the card will realise that, in doing so, they are doing a disservice to themselves and to their communities. We have all heard of the shepherd who cried wolf too often. False alarms detract from the progress on race relations that we are making generally.
I am not saying that we have tackled the problem of racism. Although we have made great progress, we have not tackled the problem. Racism is very real, it is a very real threat, and we have constantly to be vigilant in dealing with it. That is why I have always supported calls by the Commission for Racial Equality and other bodies for strengthening the 1976 Act, and why I wholeheartedly welcome the Race Relations (Amendment) Bill.
Race relations legislation is not about policing thoughts, but about changing behaviour. It is about putting down in statute the markers distinguishing between acceptable and entirely unacceptable behaviour. I welcome the Home Secretary's decision to heed the calls to include indirect discrimination within the Bill's ambit.
The Bill advances race relations legislation in several important spheres. It extends the provisions of the 1976 Act to cover a wide range of public authorities, including police, that currently are not covered by those provisions. The Bill also makes chief police officers vicariously liable for the acts of discrimination committed by their officers. It also imposes an enforceable, positive duty on public bodies to promote racial equality. That is an extremely important step.
I have a few questions to ask the Minister. Although some of the questions have already been asked by hon. Members, I should like to reinforce the points that they make. How do the Government plan to include indirect discrimination in the Bill? That issue has not been
addressed. Although we have been told that an amendment to that effect will be tabled, we have not been told what it will provide.
What is the definition of public authorities? Which public authorities will be covered by the Bill? Although some authorities have been included in the schedule, what mechanism will be used to add other authorities to the schedule or to another list? Have the Government excluded the immigration and nationality directorate from the Bill's ambit?
Have Ministers given any thought to the important issue--which does not fall within the scope of this legislation--of religious discrimination, which is a growing concern among my constituents, especially my Muslim constituents, who perceive discrimination directed at them not because of their colour, but because of their religion?
Mr. Gerald Howarth:
I am extremely grateful to the hon. Gentleman--who, like me, is a member of the Home Affairs Committee--for giving way. Could he be more specific in describing the discrimination that he says that Muslims are suffering? I should be very interested to hear what he has to say about it.
Mr. Singh:
Indeed I can. Currently, it is perfectly legal for an employer to put up a sign outside his factory gate or shop saying, "Muslims need not apply". It would be very difficult to do anything about that under the provisions of the 1976 Act. Muslims in my constituency believe that there is discrimination against them because of their religious identity. That perception comes from stories in the media demonstrating growing Islamophobia within society.
Mr. Howarth:
May I suggest to the hon. Gentleman that his constituents should not perceive an anti-Muslim phobia in this country? The United Kingdom has, for example, a growing number of mosques. During the Gulf war, when I was doing television interviews, I had to go past the Saddam Hussein mosque, in Birmingham. No Muslim thought to cover up the mosque's "Saddam Hussein" sign, which was pretty offensive to those of us who felt that our troops were engaged in a fight against Saddam Hussein. I believe that there has been much tolerance towards Muslims in the United Kingdom.
Mr. Singh:
There has been a lot of tolerance towards all minorities in this country for a long time, along with the intolerance of people with extreme racist views. One problem with religious discrimination is that, while people of the Jewish and Sikh faiths are protected by the 1976 Act because they are regarded as ethnic groups, Muslims, who are not an ethnic group because Islam is a universal religion, are not protected. Muslims want to know why they are not protected.
Dr. Ashok Kumar (Middlesbrough, South and Cleveland, East):
My hon. Friend is talking about Islamophobia. The study conducted by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation demonstrated clearly for the first time with ample evidence that Islamophobia was emerging. More work needs to be done on that. Does my hon. Friend recall that study?
Mr. Singh:
I do recall that study now that my hon. Friend has reminded me of it. I recommend it to the
Sir Peter Lloyd:
I was interested in the hon. Gentleman's comments about notices in his constituency saying "No Muslims need apply". As such a notice would have a disproportionate effect on a particular ethnic group, I would have thought it quite likely that it would be possible to prosecute such employers. Has the hon. Gentleman thought of doing so? Has he advised those affected to seek such a prosecution?
Mr. Singh:
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that. The notice was in a neighbouring town, not in my constituency. What he suggests is feasible, but the fact remains that religion is not included in the 1976 Act, and yet two religious groups--Jews and Sikhs--are covered by virtue of their ethnic origin.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Mike O'Brien):
My hon. Friend was talking about research on Islamophobia. He will be aware that the Government have commissioned Derby university to undertake some research on religious discrimination. An interim report has been published and we hope to publish a report later in the year.
Mr. Singh:
I thank my hon. Friend the Minister for those remarks.
The Bill is another giant step forward for race equality in this country. Discrimination exists and we have to tackle it. The Bill will tackle it by including public authorities. Some contributions to the debate about racism and ethnic minorities assume that all members of ethnic minorities are victims and all suffer from the same problems. That is not true. Many ethnic minority groups are succeeding. That is a tribute to our society. We need to look more specifically at the problems that particular ethnic minority groups face. We do nobody a service by lumping everybody together and asserting that ethnic minorities are all poor and disadvantaged. Many have moved forward in our society and are making huge contributions in industry, the economy, art, literature, television and, dare I say in the case of one or two of us, in politics.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |