Examination of Witness (Questions 144-159)
6 JULY 2004
RT HON
TONY BLAIR
MP
Q144 Chairman: Welcome again, Prime Minister.
I am glad you have made yourself comfortable as usual. It is rather
stuffy in here, I am afraid, today. As is normal, we notified
you a few days ago of the three themes, but, as I think everybody
knows and understands, you are not told any of the questions that
are going to be asked today. The last three meetings were inevitably
dominated by international affairs, and so you do not get bored,
we thought this time we would start with some domestic issues
and move on to international affairs. The first two themes today
will be social cohesion and domestic policy delivery, introduced
by Andrew Bennett, because we have again sub-divided into teams,
then we will follow with energy policy, led by Ian Gibson, and
then we go to Iraq and the Middle East, led by Alan Beith. Before
we do that, one quick question on update. You will remember at
the start of the last meeting I raised with you the chasm that
existed in the quality and quantity of information and, indeed,
access to witnesses that had been provided to Hutton as compared
with that which my colleagues are accustomed to, and you agreed
to look at the nearly quarter of a century old rules.[1]
That was five months ago. Can you tell me where we are on that
review?
Mr Blair: Peter Hain will be in
a position to come to you with suggestions and proposals in September.
I cannot be sure, obviously, what the precise nature of those
proposals will be at the moment. I think, going back and having
a look at it again, Alan, the areas where, if I can say this to
you, I am most sympathetic to change are areas where you have
got departmental issues that cut across not just one department
but several departments, and there is something somewhat limiting
therefore about saying it is only the actual departmental ministers
that deal with the departmental select committees. It may be more
difficult on the issues to do with advisers, but we are continuing
to discuss it and we will be in a position to come back to you
in September with some precise proposals that I hope, even if
you do not agree with all of them, you will find that there is
some movement in that direction.
Q145 Chairman: I am rather surprised
and pleased at the response, because only three weeks ago the
Leader of House, sitting where you are now, informed us that the
minister who was chairing the study group was not yet involved
and it had no formal terms of reference. So whilst there seems
to have been very little progress for four and a half months,
I am delighted at the momentum that has suddenly built up quite
spectacularly in the two weeks before your arrival here. Can we
ask you to come back next week?
Mr Blair: Yes, I take the implication,
but it has actually been . . . You raised this with me this time
last year, and then did we not have an exchange of correspondence
in February, or was it in February you raised it with me? In February
you raised it with me and then we had an exchange of correspondence.[2]
I think September, frankly, is long enough to come back to you
with some proposals, so we will do that.
Chairman: We look forward to receiving
those. We are now going to the formal hearing and to Andrew Bennett.
Q146 Andrew Bennett: Prime Minister,
I think you take the issue of social cohesion and you know only
too well the problems that there are in Northern Ireland because
of the lack of social cohesion across the communities. I think
it was at the Lisbon Summit that you put forward social cohesion
as a very important issue for the whole of Europe, and I think
in the last 12 months you and a lot of other ministers have been
stressing how important social cohesion is for economic and social
well-being. Is that still the Government's policy?
Mr Blair: Yes, absolutely.
Q147 Andrew Bennett: We have a fair number
of examples of where that is your broad policy, but in practice
a whole series of policies do not make that work?
Mr Blair: We can obviously have
a discussion about that, but I think that the thing that is most
important for us, obviously, is . . . Social cohesion is made
up of a number of different things: one is obviously to invest
in some of the more poor and disadvantaged communities, which
we have been doing; other parts of it are to do with building
good community relations and making sure that people from ethnic
or religious backgrounds can work together.
Q148 Mr Pike: You obviously know Burnley
had disturbances as one of the three places in 2001 and Lord Clarke's
Report identified, as did the Commission for Racial Equality's
Report which took place the following year, that services for
young people were particularly needed and identified deprivation
and disillusionment amongst young people as a particular problem;
and the CRE proposed that we should have a more publicly funded
youth service. Do you not think this is absolutely crucial if
we are to tackle these problems of disillusionment and lack of
cohesion and problems that occur?
Mr Blair: I agree certainly that
investment in new services is important. I also think, however,
the New Deal programmes for the unemployed are important as well,
since I think that if you have got large numbers of disaffected
young people who are unemployed that is a contributing factor
to a lack of social cohesion, and I think the education system
has a part to play in that as well.
Q149 Mr Pike: We are coming on to education
later, but we do have a lot of young people who hang round on
streets and start gangs between each other and different problems
as a result of there being a lack of places for young people to
go without a bar?
Mr Blair: I think this is an issue.
It is why we invest in new services and why we are looking, for
example, at the concept of an extended school so that the school
can be a focal point for the community as well as simply a place
where people learn. I think, on the other hand, we have also got
to be very clear that, whereas there are a whole range of reasons
for the break down in social cohesion that may occur from time
to time, we cannot justify any acts of intimidation or violence
from young people or anyone else in respect of those things. So
I think it is important that we work on the causes of it, and
I think those causes are reasonably clear to you and to me, Peter,
but I think it is important that we also make it clear that we
do not tolerate and cannot, in any shape or form, excuse behaviour
that spills over into violence.
Q150 Mr Pike: The boundaries and rigid
lines drawn on maps, do these not sometimes cause frictions? I
had a case come to me yesterday where somebody lives three doors
over a boundary for a Sure Start, and obviously people who are
mischievous and want to cause division do use these lines. Can
we get away from such rigid lines and divisions where they do
cause social cohesion problems?
Mr Blair: I think this is a very
good point. The problem obviously is that if you have a programme
like Sure Start and you have not got the resources to make it
universal, then you have got to limit its application in some
way. Very often what happens with Sure Start, for example, but
also with other programmes, is that you will limit it by reference
to a particular local authority boundary. I have the same situation
in my own constituency with Sure Start schemes. I think that one
possible way of looking at this is that we have started a dialogue
with some of the people in local government to see how we could
give them greater flexibility to decide locally how it is that
they would like to use or implement a scheme such as this. It
may be difficult to do that, but I think it is worth investigating
because they will often be in a position to know better how they
can implement such a programme in a way that does not lead people
to say—and I think this is the point you are making—"So
and so next door is getting a whole lot of help but we are not
getting it", and then they link that into maybe ethnic background
and then it becomes a cause of racial tension. This is something
that we are looking at with local government. There will be a
situation, though, in the end, where unless you have got the money
to finance a programme universally, you will be limiting it in
some way.
Q151 Mr Pike: Certainly we need more
flexibility. May I move on to my third point, which is empty houses?
You will probably know that the Halifax published their report
in March to coincide with Empty Homes weeks, and it shows a massive
number of empty houses in Liverpool and Manchester but it showed
Burnley as having the highest percentage, 7.7%. Obviously the
housing and Pathfinder projects are absolutely crucial in tackling
this, and again there are cohesion problems arising from this.
Do you think there is sufficient funding in the early years and
are we going to be guaranteed that this funding, which is particularly
a problem in many of our northern cities, there is the continuity?
Does it not need a commitment of the Government perhaps for ten,
fifteen years if these problems are to be solved of deprivation,
and three out of the five areas with the most housing are also
the most deprived areas in the country?
Mr Blair: Yes, that is true. The
Pathfinder budget, and I can check this for you, but I think it
is around £300 million. It is a substantial sum of money.
We are piloting this at the moment in various projects, and I
think we have got to do that because of the substantial sums of
money involved and see how well it works because the issue is,
obviously, if you have got a whole string of empty houses in a
particular area, why is that happening? Is this something where
you are best to demolish those houses, accept that there is a
reduction in the housing demand in that particular area, or are
there other particular reasons to do with the local community
which could be altered by other policies? I think it is important
we learn the lessons of this, and housing is a very important
part of it, but it is an expensive programme, the Pathfinder programme,
and I think we need to be sure that it is going to provide value
for money; and that is the reason why we are running it in your
area and in others. Can I make this other point to you? I think
that there is a lot that can be done too by getting the communities
to try and work together in a more cooperative way at a local
level too. I know you have done this in your own constituency,
but sometimes there is an unnecessary tension that enters into
local relations, and obviously this is what has happened in certain
parts of the north-west, particularly but not limited to the north-west,
and those are areas where particularly political parties like
the BNP can come in and exploit those tension. I think that one
part of this—you can put in various sums of money, you can
invest in new services or the Pathfinder projects, but you have
also got to work out how we get local communities from different
ethnic backgrounds to work together, to have proper exchanges
between their young people and indeed their faith communities
at well.
Q152 Mr Pike: You have to tackle other
issues as well as housing?
Mr Blair: There are a whole series
of things that we have to tackle; that is right.
Q153 Mr Denham: I wonder if I can follow
that point through. It is good news that there have not been serious
disturbances for three years now, but since the northern riots
we have had September 11th, we have had international military
action, we have had a sharp rise in public concern about asylum,
we have undoubtedly had the alienation of some Muslim young people.
Would you say that the underlying social tensions that led to
the riots are better or worse than they were three years ago?
Mr Blair: I think it is difficult
to judge unless area by area. I think in some respects they are
better, and, as you say, we have not had those disturbances, but
I think that the issue to do with terrorism, and we heard all
the controversy over the stop and search and so on, has put a
new dimension of this into the equation which, I think, is difficult.
I know from my conversations with leaders of the Muslim community
that they feel very strongly that if someone who calls himself
a Protestant goes onto the street in Northern Ireland and murders
a Catholic that that does not reflect on the whole of the Protestant
religion, whereas they feel that if you get Muslim extremists
or terrorists then somehow this can be taken as stigmatising the
entire community; and I think we need to be sensitive to that
and we need to give publicity to the fact that the vast majority
of Muslim leaders are immensely responsible people who exercise
a very positive effect within the local communities and for community
harmony. I looked at the report that you did a year ago now in
respect of these issues, John, and I think we have made some progress
actually. There is certainly . . . For example, in relation to
local government and their services assessments, we do put issues
to do with social cohesion and community relations into that now,
but it does depend enormously on the willingness and good efforts
of the people on the ground in each individual community. So my
assessment would be that I think it probably in some ways is better
that it was, but, on the other hand, I think there is this new
dimension that we need to watch.
Q154 Mr Denham: Can I ask whether you
feel that the Government has pursued this important issue with
sufficient focus over the last three years? You mentioned stop
and search and policing. In the first national policing plan,
community cohesion, which I think is the same as social cohesion,
was given a very high priority for the police services nationally.
In the most recent national policing plan it has very clearly
been down-graded as a priority and no doubt other things like
the fight against terrorism at one end or anti-social behaviour
at the other have risen up the agenda. Are you certain, Prime
Minister, that social cohesion has been given a consistently high
priority by central government to ensure that most progress is
made at local level?
Mr Blair: I would like to think
that we have done everything that we reasonably can. I think,
in relation to policing, it is not so much that it has been down-graded
but, obviously, as you say, there are other issues that have achieved
a particular salience recently. I would say that the police, for
example, in London are more attuned to community cohesion issues
than I would certainly say from 10 years ago and even possibly
from five years ago. I think they are more aware of the need,
for example, to go out and recruit people from the different parts
of the ethnic community. I think, some of the issues to do with
behaviour inside the police force and the way areas are policed
have been adapted, and I think that one of the things that is
interesting is that in relation to some of these powers that the
police have been given the powers are a lot more extensive than
they have been for many, many years. On the other hand, we have
not actually had a very strong push back from the communities,
whereas I remember all the controversy there was in the 1980s
over the stop and search powers, when it became a real focal point
of racial tension, and I think that for a lot of these local communities
they want pretty tough policing. They do want their community
cohesion, but they want some tough policing as well, and, provided
they think the tougher policing is fair on the basis to whom it
is applied—in other words, it is applied whatever the colour
of your skin or religion—then they are up for some pretty
hard stuff in dealing with drug-dealers and dealing with people
who cause dissent and difficulty within their communities.
Q155 Mr Denham: To end on this point,
Prime Minister, will you look at next year's national policing
plan just to make sure that social cohesion is given an appropriate
priority?
Mr Blair: I am very happy to do
that, and what I will do is I will write to you, if I might, in
respect of whether there is any deliberate down-playing of it
in respect of this year. I suspect not, but I will check it out
for you.[3]
Q156 Andrew Bennett: Do you think social
cohesion is something that all government departments think about
all the time? The ODPM and the Audit Commission have been very
firmly pushing choice-based lettings in housing. That can very
easily lead to housing segregation.
Mr Blair: I do not want departments
to focus on it all the time. The question is do they focus on
it to the exclusion of everything else? No, I think they will
have various other issues that they need to look at. I think this
is difficult, because I am sure, as indicated, we will go on and
talk about education a moment, but in relation to faith schools,
for example, you could perfectly easily make the case: is it in
the interests of social cohesion that you have faith schools at
all? I happen to think, in the end, this is a choice you cannot
take away from people and I would, therefore, say, if there is
a social cohesion issue that comes out or a community cohesion
issue, you have to try and manage that. So, do departments think
about it all the time? I know that they have it there as a significant
priority for them, but it can be, in certain instances, that other
policies can at one level appear to conflict with it.
Q157 Andrew Bennett: Yes. You have got
this policy of wanting to impose choice in education and in health,
but there is a danger that that just undermines social cohesion.
If you are a parent making a choice about a school, it is very
difficult if you are trying to predict what the school is going
to deliver for the next six or seven years, but it is much easier
to look at the colour of the pupils there and make a decision
that your child might be more comfortable with children from the
same background. There is a lot of danger that we have got schools
suffering from `White Flight' now. Is there not a conflict between
your desire for choice and for social cohesion?
Mr Blair: I do not believe so:
because I think that in the end the most important thing is to
try and lift the standards of the schools whatever the ethnic
background of the children in them. The question is in the end,
the hard question is: do you say that you have some restrictions
on faith schools, for example? I would say, no, to that because
I do not think it is justifiable that, say, there should be Catholic
and Protestant faith-based schools but not Jewish or Muslim ones.
Q158 Andrew Bennett: But you know the
problem we have got in Northern Ireland as a result of segregated
education?
Mr Blair: Yes, but I think what
I would say is: is the problem in Northern Ireland the segregated
education or is the problem the nature of the division that has
grown up between the two communities? We have a situation in London
where, within a few miles of here, you will have a range of Church
of England and Catholic schools. I do not think there is any great
tension between the two. So I am not sure that the issue is the
segregation by way of education, I think the issue is more deep-seated
in respect of the way that the communities interact with each
other in Northern Ireland, for example, where it was then linked
with a whole set of political issues.
Q159 Sir Nicholas Winterton: Prime Minister,
for social cohesion to succeed do you believe that people should
be happy and secure in their own homes?
Mr Blair: Yes, I would certainly
agree with that, Nicholas.
1 Q.1 Back
2
Ev 28 Back
3
Ev 53 Back
|
