Examination of Witnesses (Questions 640-659)
11 FEBRUARY 2004
MR TREVOR
PHILLIPS, MR
DHARMENDRA KANANI
AND MS
SANDY PITCHER
Q640 Chairman: I have to say that the
Committee were somewhat shocked that Mr Phillips failed to get
up to Oldham when we were originally taking evidence on this;
for him to fail again does seem to me to be remarkable, given
that I have been chairing this Committee on and off in one form
or another for over eight years and I do not think we have had
any other example of a witness who has failed twice to turn up.
Perhaps you would draw that to his attention.
Mr Kanani: By all means. I do
apologise once again on his behalf.
Q641 Mr Betts: The Government has now
clarified what it means by social cohesion. What do you see as
the CRE's role in delivering that?—If, indeed, you do see
it as your role to deliver it.
Mr Kanani: Absolutely. I think
we have a very important role and I think we have a partnership
role in assisting in the delivery of that particular policy objective.
I do not see it as being our sole purpose but I do see us as a
partner organisation with local Government with central government
and others to enable the delivery of that. From our point of view
it is also about ensuring that the centrality of the issues of
racial equality is brought to the fore. One of the issues we have
come to understand and experience, especially from our work on
the ground through funding work throughout Britain, has been the
sometimes confusion between the role of social cohesion and how
racial equality actually fits within that overall framework. It
has been a complicating process, which people have tended to make
sense of as we move forward, but, from our point of view, we have
a number of functions and a role to play, not least through our
policy advocacy role through to the grant management and grant
making role that we have through to assisting with government
and other agencies in providing advice and guidance.
Q642 Mr Betts: Do you see a potential
conflict there between the equality role and the social cohesion
role? In the past, it seemed almost as though in the equality
mode, if I may put it that way, there was a celebration of diversity:
we were living in a multicultural society and everyone had a right
to be themselves, to celebrate their own culture. Then social
cohesion comes along and says, "Well actually it is all very
well being a multicultural society but we really have a series
of different cultures which do not touch each other: people live
in their own culture but never get out and have any contact with
people from another culture who could be living in the same street."
Is there a conflict there?
Mr Kanani: No, I do not think
there is a conflict. I think many have referred to the issues
of incompatability between the issues of cohesion and equality.
I think we need to understand very clearly that we cannot achieve
social cohesion or cohesion of any sort unless we begin to tackle
issues of both inequality and discrimination. I think that is
where the rub is, if we begin to ignore that how communities begin
to trust each other, live comfortably next to each other, is born
out of their experiences of access to services and their ability
to enjoy employment on a fair and equitable basis—and I
think issues around perceptions come to the fore. So I do not
think they are incompatible as issues. I think there is a job
of work for us to do and for providers of public services in particular
to ensure that that confusion does not actually occur, both in
the minds of individuals receiving services or attempting to achieve
employment but those who are actually providing those goods and
facilities. I think we need to be very clear, so that there is
not that confusion.
Q643 Mr Betts: Why did you say in your
submission to us that, "The CRE does not believe that the
community cohesion agenda has assisted greatly in advancing towards
a society where all inhabitants have a place where diversity is
appreciated and welcomed and difference is respected"? You
had just said there is not a problem, but in the submission you
are saying that you thought it was not very helpful.
Mr Kanani: We feel that the way
in which the policy aim is being implemented and where it has
been understood has created and caused that potential conflict.
We feel that the way in which it is actually delivered and made
sense of is what is important. That is where we drew attention
in our submission to the fact that there are issues where the
way in which the whole agenda has been unfolded and delivered
has caused that kind of difficulty, not least on a local level
in terms of how people have made sense of both the issues.
Q644 Chairman: Good morning.
Mr Phillips: Good morning. My
apologies. I am afraid I am not having much luck with this Committee.
Q645 Chairman: We have already commented
on your inability to get to Oldham and now your inability to get
here on time.
Mr Phillips: Yes.
Chairman: But we have started the session,
so we will continue with questions.
Q646 Mr Cummings: In your submission
you say that one of the guiding principles is to promote good
relations, but does the evidence of the 2001 disturbances not
suggest that you have failed in this respect or at least not given
this the necessary degree of priority?
Mr Phillips: Forgive me, I am
not sure where we have got to, but—
Q647 Chairman: The second set of questions.
If you could answer the question, we would be grateful.
Mr Phillips: In direct response
to your question, I think to reach that conclusion you would have
to pre-suppose that the CRE—if by "you" you mean
the Commission for Racial Equality—is in itself some way
responsible for the fundamental causes of those disturbances and
the fractures that led to them. I am sure other people have said
to you—and I have read the evidence—-
Q648 Mr Cummings: I was not suggesting
that you are the cause.
Mr Phillips: When you say, "Does
that not suggest that you have failed" it seems pretty direct.
It was a fair question. If I may answer it.
Q649 Mr Cummings: I would think it is
more than a fair question but I am certainly not attacking any
individual or any organisation. I am trying to ascertain your
thinking behind where perhaps you may have failed. I am not suggesting
you have.
Mr Phillips: I am trying to answer
your question. If your question is: Does that suggest that we,
the CRE, have failed? And I think the answer is in what are the
causes of this. We know that some of the causes are to do with
economic deprivation. We know that some of the causes are to do
with inequality. Some of that is to do with government action
and some is to do with the position of the private sector, some
of it is to do with the way that local government has worked.
The question is: Could we in some way or another have influenced
the behaviour of all of those actors in a way that changed what
they did? I would say: A bit, but not a huge amount. Perhaps it
would be simpler to say what we have done since. In the case of
East Lancashire, Burnley particularly, we have now set up an REC
where we did not have one before, to support the efforts of local
councils and to encourage people, particularly those in the voluntary
sector, who want to bring different communities together, to create
greater contacts between communities. Elsewhere I myself have
been to Bradford and Oldham, although I have not been to Burnley,
to discuss with particularly local councils and the voluntary
sector there how we might help and support them by making grants
available, by encouraging new activities. I am sure Dharmendra
has already spoken about our Safe Communities Initiative—and
it is in our evidence—where we are trying to develop some
new ways of approaching issues of conflict avoidance.
Q650 Mr Cummings: For instance, with
the benefit of hindsight, do you think it was wrong for organisations
like your own to focus narrowly on the equalities agenda without
trying to tackle some of the underlying causes of racism and discrimination,
perhaps by promoting much wider cross-cultural understanding?
Mr Phillips: If that were the
case it would have been wrong, but it is not. My own first involvement
with the Commission for Racial Equality, which reaches back now
nearly 30 years, was the promotion of a painting competition for
schoolchildren aimed at encouraging multiculturalism. Much of
the CRE's promotional effort has been directed at persuading,
if I may put it that way, the British public that racial and ethnic
differences are not in themselves a reason for division. A great
deal of what Race Equality Councils do locally is not to do with
what you would describe as a narrow equality agenda but much more
to do with reconciliation, a great deal to do with bringing different
communities together. It is not always successful—this is
hard and difficult work—but it would not be correct in any
way, shape or form to suggest that the CRE or, indeed, Race Equality
Councils, have focused on a narrow agenda.
Q651 Mr Cummings: In your view, which
national body now has responsibility for promoting and developing
a national framework for good community relations? Is it the Community
Cohesion Unit of the Home Office?
Mr Phillips: Within government?
Q652 Mr Cummings: Yes, which national
body.
Mr Phillips: As I think you will
have seen from our evidence, we are a little bit sceptical about
the way in which the entire concept of community cohesion has
been approached. I am rather doubtful whether in practice it has
content. I think the formal position is that this is the territory
of the Home Office. I happen to believe that the new minister
who is responsible for this has taken a pretty active and vigorous
posture on it. I am not, however, persuaded that the machinery
of government is clear about where the responsibility for driving
such an agenda as it has is located. There is a Community Cohesion
Unit within the Home Office but I would guess that the Home Office
would tell you—and you would have to ask them really about
this because we are not responsible for Home Office policy—that
this is a cross-departmental responsibility, including ODPM, including
DWP, for example.
Q653 Chairman: Who are giving you the
thumbs down and really saying that it is not working?
Mr Phillips: It is not clear to
me.
Q654 Chris Mole: Do you say that because
you think it should be the CRE?
Mr Phillips: Could I make a more
general comment? I dislike the term "community cohesion",
frankly. I think it lacks clarity. I think we are beginning to
talk more about the term "an integrated society" because
in order to advance a solution—which is what I think community
cohesion is supposed to be—we have first to understand what
it is you are trying to remedy. My view is that we are trying
to remedy some of the fractures in our society. Some of those
are economically driven; some are driven by other kinds of difference
and division independent of economics. Our particular interest
is in the fractures that are driven by race, ethnicity, nationality,
national origin and so on, so we have, we think, a big role to
play in an integration strategy that will heal those fractures,
but that would not be the only set of fractures that have to be
healed. You could argue that perhaps the biggest factor here,
if we are talking about economic fractures, is the Treasury.
Q655 Mr Cummings: Would it be correct
to assume that the proposed new single equality body does not
meet with your favour?
Mr Phillips: No, it would be incorrect
to assume that. I am in favour of a single equality body if it
adds value to the effort of the existing bodies. I think there
are two great possible values of a single equality body. First
of all, it would place equality in the centre of the public realm
rather than at the margins, where it is to some extent, because
there are limited binds to all of the existing commissions. Secondly,
if constructed properly and given the right framework of law and
the right resources, the single equality body would be a driver
for equality right across government and right across society
and it would embody advances towards equality. That is the good
picture. The bad picture is that you create a vast bureaucracy
with warring factions and diverse interests which cannot be resolved.
I do not think we necessarily need to go down that road. That
is part of the discussion that is being held at the moment, centring
on DTI. Our view is that there is all to play for here. If we
can get the right structure, we can get the right outcome. This
could be an immensely powerful independent guarantor of equality
in our society. That is what I think is worth working for.
Q656 Chris Mole: On that last point,
do you think that focusing on equalities within the single body
will allow yourselves to concentrate on the integrated society
agenda?
Mr Phillips: Yes, I do not see
why not. The proposal for the single equality body does not make
any difference to the fundamental weapons, if I may put it that
way, of the Commission for Racial Equality which is law. We work
under the framework of two laws. I think it is quite important
for people to remember that the Commission for Racial Equality
is not an advocacy body. It is not a pressure group. It is a law
enforcement agency. It is a regulator. If we operate within a
different framework, the important thing about that framework
is will it regulate, will it enforce the law as well—and
I mean both equality law and, as it were, the integration aspects
of the Race Relations Acts. My own view is that a bigger more
substantial body could do it much better. I think there may be
aspects of changes in the legislation to bring about the new body
that could help us to do what we do more successfully and more
effectively. Forgive me if I am not understanding your question,
but if I understand the thrust of it—Would our issues, as
it were, get lost in a bigger body?—frankly, I do not think
that necessarily is the case. If we still have the basic law,
we still have the resources and we do our job well, there is absolutely
no reason why within this framework we should not do it better.
Q657 Chris Mole: If I could move onto
mainstreaming at a local level, the amendments to the Race Relations
Act 2001 gave most public authorities some statutory duties around
promoting race equality. Which single agency at a local level
do you think now has overall responsibility for the integrated
society agenda?
Mr Phillips: You would have to
say, without question, the most powerful body would be the local
authorities because they hold some of the most significant levers.
Speaking personally, I think the most important institutions,
both because of what they do and also because of where they are,
are schools. In many of the communities where there are parallel
lives, the issues you are concerned about, the place where people
meet could be in school or in college. When I went to Oldham,
one of the interesting things that the young people in Oldham
College said is that that is the only place where Asian and white
young people meet, and on Fridays and Saturday nights and Sundays
they do not see each other. I think that education under the local
authority is an important lever. I think the planning regime is
an extremely important lever which we have under-utilised. By
that, I mean this: In trying to reach for an integrated society,
developing it locally, you have two choices. You can say that
we want to prevent all clusters of ethnicity and so on developing
and we will use a planning regime to prevent any ward, for example,
having more than a certain proportion of families of certain backgrounds;
or you can say that we want to create bridges between different
communities which naturally cluster together and we want to create,
if necessary artificially, opportunities where people will be
led to integrate. I favour the second. That means, for example,
that if you are planning a new park or a new supermarket one of
the factors you will take into account, alongside the issues of
where land is available, cost and so forth, is its contribution
to increasing the interaction between people of different backgrounds.
In essence, if you put a new supermarket in in certain towns,
you could put it in the middle of an Asian community or a white
community, or you could put in on the border so that the shoppers
meet in the queue as part of their natural daily business. If
I were forced to make a choice, I would have to say local authorities
are powerful actors here.
Q658 Chris Mole: If you see local authorities
as the ones having the most impact or perhaps the ones in the
best position to give a lead, do you think they can really achieve
a significant contribution by themselves or do they need to work
in partnerships with other public agencies and would you think
that the new local strategic partnerships were the right body
to take on that sort of role?
Mr Phillips: The answer to the
first question is yes. The most important bodies with which they
have to work are probably the public agencies, particularly the
Regional Development Agencies, and, I would say, other public
service agencies. I would say the National Health Service, generally
speaking, is probably the most significant and biggest one—the
impact of the work of PCTs and hospitals, I think, is very much
underestimated. On the question of whether LSPs, as it were, are
doing the job, in our view the jury is definitely out. I will
tell you my own view, which is that I think the concentration
in area-based initiatives does not look like a success in our
terms.
Q659 Chairman: Can you tell us of an
example of a local strategic partnership that you think is doing
well?
Mr Kanani: No, we cannot actually.
The evidence we have from our partners on the ground, especially
those agencies that we fund, the "clarion call", is
that whilst LSPs are a very good thing—and in terms of the
intention behind them they are a very good idea—with all
such good ideas the difficulty is about making them work. Consistently
we find that LSPs are not foregrounding the issue of equality
and race equality at the heart of their business. That seems to
be a recurring theme. I think a lot more effort or leverage has
to be placed on making them take that particular issue forward
in a more meaningful way.
| 
