Examination of Witness (Questions 80-99)
RT HON
TONY BLAIR
MP
22 NOVEMBER 2005
Q80 Mr Denham: Prime Minister, have
you discussed the recent disturbances in France with the French
Prime Minister?
Mr Blair: No, I have not discussed
those with him directly, no, although our system obviously has
been in touch with theirs as to whether there is anything we can
do to help and so on.
Mr Denham: We might look at some of the
issues arising from that.
Q81 Dr Starkey: Prime Minister, one
of the factors behind the disturbances in France was the gross
social inequity between the people in the banlieue and
the rest of France. You were warned in 2000 by the Social Exclusion
Unit about the unacceptably high levels of deprivation here amongst
black and minority ethnic communities, but now those in the minorities
are still at least twice as likely to be unemployed, to live in
overcrowded conditions or to be homeless as the majority population.
Where do you think the Government should have done more since
2000?
Mr Blair: Well, I would say we
have done a lot through urban regeneration and through the New
Deal for the Communities.
Q82 Dr Starkey: But should we have
done more?
Mr Blair: I am just trying to
say, I am not sure there is a great deal more we can do, except
to put significant investment into those communities and, for
example, in the New Deal we placed particular emphasis on helping
people from those parts of the city or those groups who have been
most disadvantaged. I think this Government's record on social
cohesion is actually a good one and, no, I am not the slightest
bit complacent about it, neither do I hold that up as a model
of something where nothing can go wrong, I do not think that is
true, but I actually do think we have made a real effort in our
inner-city areas and some of what we are doing now on education
and health and so on will do even more so to make sure that those
areas do get the benefits of higher economic growth.
Q83 Dr Starkey: Can I turn to education.
You have had another warning in 2003 from the Performance and
Innovation Unit which highlighted the poor performance of Pakistanis,
Bangladeshis and black Caribbeans in school and the labour market
and again pointed out the threat to social cohesion. At that point
you said that their recommendations would be implemented immediately
as government policy. Well, in education do you have a target
for actually achieving parity in educational achievement between
the minority groups and the majority population?
Mr Blair: We do not have a specific
target, as such, but one of the things that we are doing through
the education policies that we are pursuing is actually to make
sure that we do put schools, for example, those schools that we
have been talking about earlier in the areas of greatest disadvantage,
and there is another issue as well which is to try to provide
good role models for people within those communities because,
as you rightly say, this is not all ethnic minorities that are
in this position, but it is specific ethnic minorities and, therefore,
I think we need specific policies for them.
Q84 Dr Starkey: But is not the lesson
from the repeated warnings that the Government has had that the
Government's response has not been adequate, that warm words are
not enough, and maybe more specific targets might be a positive
way forward?
Mr Blair: Well, I would be slightly
hesitant of saying I am going to have a specific target for a
particular ethnic group, but I would say that we are trying to
heed the warnings in the sense that the regeneration work that
we are doing is often focused on the most disadvantaged areas.
The New Deal for Communities, there is billions of pounds we have
spent through that, but obviously we will listen carefully to
other things that people recommend us to do, but I think we are
trying, through the New Deal and not just, as I say, through the
New Deal for Communities, but the New Deal for those that are
unemployed, to make people feel that they have greater opportunities
and actually have greater opportunities. Also the whole Muslim
outreach programme that we are pursuing again is designed to try
to make sure that people from those communities feel that they
have a real stake in British society and can succeed in it.
Q85 Dr Starkey: Can I turn then to
housing which is a key issue. Amongst the Muslim community, for
example, 40% of all dependent Muslim children are living in overcrowded
accommodation and that is more than three times the level for
the majority population. Now, this Government believes in promoting
home ownership to deal with housing need, but where does that
leave the 14% of Pakistanis and Bangladeshis who are unemployed
and the even higher percentage on very low wages? What does home
ownership offer for them?
Mr Blair: Well, obviously if they
cannot afford to own their own homes, they will not be able to
do that, but that is why we have got measures to try and help
them off benefit and into work if they are unemployed.
Q86 Dr Starkey: So is that the solution,
to get everybody earning enough money to be able to get into home
ownership? Are you offering nothing to the people who cannot?
Mr Blair: No, we have also got
a big investment, as you know, in social housing and we are putting
a lot of money into social housing. We look constantly at what
more we can do, but I think it would be odd to look back on this
Government's record over eight years and say that we have not
put a lot of money into particular inner-city regeneration. I
think though there is another set of issues which are not just
to do with money, but are to do with communities feeling isolated
from the mainstream which are to do with how we, as I say, reach
out into those communities and get local leaders and local role
models who are helping—
Q87 Dr Starkey: I would not dissent
from that, Prime Minister, but do you not accept that in addition
to the money that is going into social housing for ownership and
shared ownership, there is also a need to increase the rental
sector for those people who cannot afford, whatever the help,
to get into home ownership?
Mr Blair: Yes, I think that is
true and that is one of the reasons for investing in social housing.
Q88 Dr Starkey: And increasing the
investment in social rented housing?
Mr Blair: Yes, there is a strong
case for us doing more. The trouble is there is always a limit
on resources.
Q89 Dr Starkey: But if we are truly
to deal with the inequities, then we need specifically to address
the issues that particularly affect the minority community, and
the competition between communities for the social rented sector
is a key cause of inter-communal tension, for example.
Mr Blair: That is definitely true
and that is why it is important that we try and gear the policy
and the money that is being spent to eliminating some of that,
and I am not disagreeing, I think there is more that we need to
do. All I am saying is that I think there is also another dimension
to this which is not about money, but is about the sense of belonging
that some communities have simply to the wider society.
Q90 Dr Starkey: Can I quote to you,
Prime Minister, another statistic which demonstrates the extent
of the sense of failure in dealing with this problem and that
is the proportion of prisoners in our prisons from black and ethnic
minority communities. The proportion of black and ethnic minority
prisoners has risen eight times faster than any other group in
the last five years. Does that not suggest that there has been
not enough urgency in dealing with the root causes of inequality
and certainly not as much urgency as there has been, for example,
in the legislation to deal with its symptoms, like dealing with
anti-social behaviour?
Mr Blair: Well, I think we have
dealt with this with a certain amount of urgency, for example,
the Surestart programmes that are now in virtually every community
in the country, as I say, the inner-city regeneration programmes,
the help that we are now giving for people with drug addiction
problems and so on. Let's be honest about them, these are very
deep-rooted problems and they are not going to be solved within
a few years of policy-making. On the other hand, I would say,
and I say this with no sense of complacency at all incidentally,
but I would say that Britain provides at least as good a model
of integration as most other European countries. Now, I am not
saying we cannot do an awful lot more, incidentally, so do not
misunderstand me, we can do an awful lot more and we should do
it, but let's not ignore some of the progress that has been made.
Q91 Dr Starkey: I am not ignoring
it, Prime Minister, but the evidence of outcome would suggest
that there does need to be a greater urgency if the gap is to
be closed in a reasonable time. Would you accept that?
Mr Blair: I accept that it is
an urgent and serious problem and we need to do more, I do accept
that absolutely. All I am trying to say is I think it is not as
if it has been a problem that has been pushed to one side and
we have actually been working on it and working on it intensively.
I do emphasise this point though because I think you made the
point earlier in your remarks, that this is not all ethnic minority
communities. There is a specific issue in certain parts of our
ethnic minority communities and we need to try to resolve that
and it will not just be resolved by financial means, is my view,
but others may be better qualified than me to judge that.
Q92 Mr Denham: Prime Minister, Phyllis
Starkey referred to the Social Exclusion Unit report, we have
had the Performance and Innovation Unit report, and we could go
back to 2001 and the Cantle report.[4]
You have just spent 50 minutes talking about the public services
where you have spent a huge amount of money and saying we need
to make more changes because it is not working. Would you accept
that this is an area where, despite the investment, we have not
produced the results that we wanted and it is time for some fresh
and radical thinking?
Mr Blair: I would be very happy
to look at the fresh and radical thinking that people put forward
on it. I just need to know that it would work.
Q93 Mr Dismore: I would like to ask
you about the memoranda of understanding for the return of national
security suspects to their countries. Can you tell me how many
people have been detained pending deportation under MoUs and to
which countries do you wish to send them?
Mr Blair: I cannot recall the
exact figures. I think it is sort of 15 to 20, but I cannot give
you the exact figures on that.[5]
Q94 Mr Dismore: How will you ensure effective
scrutiny of MoUs if the NGOs, who are required as independent
bodies to do the scrutiny, decide to pull out, as most of them
seem now to be doing?
Mr Blair: Well, we also do pay
careful attention to the undertakings that are given to us by
other governments, but you have got a problem about this, Andrew.
My attitude to this is very simple: if someone comes to this country,
we expect them to abide by our values and behave in a proper way
and, if they do not, then we need to be able to put them back
out of the country again.
Q95 Mr Dismore: So what would you do
if evidence emerges that somebody who has been sent back has been
tortured?
Mr Blair: Well, that would be
a breach of the undertakings that would have been given to us
and obviously that would be very serious, but that has not happened.
Actually I do not believe a government with which this country
has a friendly relationship would give us such an undertaking
and then breach it. I do not believe that they would do that as
a matter of fact, but the alternative is to say that these people
can remain in our country literally whatever they do and I think
most of the people in this country would find that unacceptable.
I find it unacceptable actually.
Q96 Mr Dismore: One of the things
you are trying to do is to overturn the European Court's decision
in Chahal which forbids, under the Convention, the return
of people who are national security suspects if they face the
risk of torture. If you are successful in overturning Chahal,
would you be prepared to return people who would potentially face
that risk of torture?
Mr Blair: No, we would return
people only under a memorandum of understanding with the government
to where we are returning them to or an agreement with that government.
I do not want to return anyone to be tortured, but, on the other
hand, what I do not want either is a situation where people feel
they can come to this country and, to put it quite bluntly, abuse
the hospitality and generosity of the British people, incite others
to go and commit terrorist acts and then say, "What's more,
you've got to keep us here".
Q97 Mr Dismore: It looks likely that
the UK courts may well rule against deportation under MoUs, particularly
if Chahal is not overturned, which looks likely. The judges
have already said that you cannot lock people up indefinitely
and control orders are obviously really a poor substitute, so
what do you actually think you should do if there is someone whom
the judges say you cannot lock up, you cannot return and there
is credible evidence, which is inadmissible for a prosecution
because it is intelligence-based? What do you do with them if
you cannot lock them up or send them back lawfully?
Mr Blair: That is a very good
question which is why I want to get the memoranda agreed with
the other governments so that we can put them back.
Q98 Mr Dismore: In August you said
that you would, if necessary, legislate further to amend the Human
Rights Act in respect of the interpretation of the European Convention.
Is that still your intention?
Mr Blair: Yes, we have got to
be in a position where we can rely on the memoranda. The Chahal
case is slightly more complicated than our exchange may have indicated
in the sense that the court in that particular case were not prepared
to accept the assurances that were given, but had they been prepared
to accept the assurances that were given, then they would have
returned the people, so it is not quite as absolute, the Chahal
case, as is sometimes said. Part of the problem I have in this
area is that we are all facing this global terrorist threat at
the moment and it is real, and I think people can see that from
what is happening right around the world, and we have also got
to understand that sometimes other countries feel really angry
if they see people who are inciting terrorism in their own countries,
sitting in Britain with nothing happening in respect of them,
whilst Britain is telling them to join this great coalition against
terrorism. They get, I think perfectly understandably, rather
angry about that and say, "Well, if you want us to join this
coalition, why are you giving refuge in your country to people
who are actually openly inciting people to go and kill the innocent
in our country?", and I think that is a fair enough point.
It is one reason why, I think, we need to look very carefully
internationally at how these conventions work because this was
all done arising out of the Second World War and the Holocaust
and so on for perfectly understandable and absolutely right reasons,
but it does not very much correspond with the reality that most
of us are facing today and I think that reality is very, very
tough. People sometimes say that I am sort of casual about civil
liberties in relation to this, I am not at all, but I do believe
you need to send some pretty strong signals out there for people
who might want to come into our country to cause trouble or conspire
to commit terrorist acts, and I would like them to get the message
that, "If you do that, life is going to be difficult for
you and you are likely to be turned back to your own country if
you carry on doing this".
Q99 Mr Dismore: The Home Secretary
told my Committee that it was not the Government's intention to
consider amending the Human Rights Act, nor to derogate from the
Convention, nor to seek to amend it, which also confirms what
he told the Home Affairs Committee, that he would not seek changes
to the Convention. However, what you seem to be saying is contrary
to that, that, if it proves necessary, you will try and change
our position under the Human Rights Act or under the Convention.
Mr Blair: No, I think what Charles
is saying is, "Look, let's wait and see where we get to in
this", and that is perfectly sensible as it may be we do
not need to do this, but in the end the bottom line has got to
be that we have got to be able to make sure that we return people
if they are a threat to the security of this country. I do not
intend returning anyone incidentally unless we can get assurances
from that other Government. By and large we believe, on the basis
of the evidence we have, that Governments who give us such an
assurance in respect of a particular individual will abide by
that. My point is that otherwise I am left in a situation where
we are just going to keep these people in this country forever.
For the ordinary member of the public they think, "That's
a bit strange. Why are we doing this?" Why do we have to
hold these people here in this country; often they can be living
on benefits in Britain whilst, at the same time, they are trying
to incite people to destroy our own way of life. As many times
as I have looked at this I come back to that point and I find
it pretty difficult to explain to people why that should be so.
4 Community Cohesion: The report of disturbances of
summer 2001, The Independent Review Team, 11 December 2002. Back
5
See Ev 27 Back
|
