Examination of Witnesses (Questions 200-219)
RT HON
RUTH KELLY
MP, MR PETER
UNWIN AND
MR RICHARD
MCCARTHY
4 DECEMBER 2006
Q200 Mr Hands: It was more a practical
question. How, practically, will you oversee it? Will you have
regular meetings with the chairman or the chief executive? How
will you actually do it?
Ruth Kelly: I do have regular
meetings with the new chairman, as indeed do other ministers in
my department. We meet extremely regularly to discuss issues of
mutual concern. Clearly the CEHR is not yet fully set up, so the
precise mechanisms for overseeing it will be made clear in due
course.
Q201 Mr Hands: Will there be scrutiny
in Parliament? Will you field questions about the work of the
CEHR in Parliament?
Ruth Kelly: Yes; absolutely.
Chair: This Committee will scrutinise
it as well.
Q202 Mr Hands: Secondly on multiculturalism?
Ruth Kelly: May I say on my general
approach to multiculturalism that I think Britain is a diverse
society, different communities who have come to this country or
indeed are second or third generation immigrants to this country
have made a hug contribution both to its economic, social and
its cultural life. We ought to be proud of their contributions
to this society. We have a tradition of tolerance and we have
a tradition of recognising people of faith as well as people of
none. I think Britain is a good place for those communities to
live, but we also need a framework which is sustainable in the
long run and recognise those tensions at a local level as and
when they occur. That was partly the reason for setting up the
Commission on Integration and Cohesion, so that they could take
a really hard practical look at what makes multiculturalism work
well or why different communities get on together properly and
well at local level and what is likely to lead to the opposite
effect.
Q203 Mr Hands: That was a statement
of your own beliefs. How has government policy changed or has
government policy changed?
Ruth Kelly: One of the issues
which I, as Secretary of State in this department, have been talking
about is how the decline in our shared identity can be reversed
and how we, as British society, can give as much weight to celebrating
our common bonds as to acknowledging difference.
Q204 Mr Hands: Specifically about
government policy. Has it changed? If so, how?
Ruth Kelly: One of the issues
which the Commission on Integration and Cohesion is looking at
is precisely—
Q205 Mr Hands: That is not government
policy. They are producing a report.
Ruth Kelly: It is; it is informing
government policy. It is precisely to identify what practical
actions make a difference to communities getting on well. For
instance, does urban design matter? Does housing allocation have
a role to play? How should regeneration projects be funded? How
should different community projects be funded? For instance, the
local government White Paper is a classic example of how we integrated
this into our thinking as a department: there was a whole chapter
on community cohesion. How can local government structures themselves
incorporate the views of different communities?
Q206 Mr Hands: That is a set of questions.
What I am asking you is whether government policy has changed.
You are throwing back at me the various questions you are asking
yourselves but my question is: has government policy changed?
Ruth Kelly: Yes. Through the local
strategic partnership framework we are asking all local authorities
to think about community cohesion, to try to encourage community
cohesion, to think about the funding of different groups and whether
or not that promotes community cohesion or not and to make judgements
on that basis. It could be through our new performance framework
at a local government level that community cohesion is identified
as one of the 35 priorities that a local area has to deal with
and target. That is going to engender a cultural change at the
local authority level, but of course it is right for them to be
taking actions rather than for us to be taking actions.
Q207 Mr Hands: Is it therefore government
policy that local authorities have been giving out too many grants
or too much funding to groups they should not be? What is the
policy behind it?
Ruth Kelly: Life is never that
simple. It is right however for us to ensure we ask the difficult
questions and to make sure that local authorities, in their consideration
of these issues, think about them systematically, bring the right
people together, have opportunities for people of different ages,
but also different faiths and background to discuss issues of
concern, to consult widely and to make policy on that basis.
Q208 Martin Horwood: I think I am
encouraged by what I thought you were saying about diversity.
It was not entirely clear towards the end. Just for clarification,
do you and the Government still believe in a society where multiple
cultures are tolerated and celebrated?
Ruth Kelly: Yes.
Q209 Martin Horwood: That is excellent.
That is good news. Second, do you think the controversy over the
Niqab actually hindered or helped that? It is relevant because
we are talking about joined-up government here, we are talking
about shared values across the Cabinet and Cabinet ministers were
involved in that controversy. Do you think that helped or hindered
the process of encouraging community harmony?
Ruth Kelly: I think it promoted
understanding.
Q210 Martin Horwood: You do?
Ruth Kelly: Absolutely. It would
be wrong for politicians not to be able to talk about subjects
which clearly people on the street are talking about and that
would be a hindrance rather than a help.
Q211 Martin Horwood: Nobody suggested
that they were not able to do it. I asked whether it hindered
or helped.
Ruth Kelly: On issues which are
very sensitive, there is no point tiptoeing around. I think it
is right that we are able to debate them freely. People will have
different views, it is right that they are able to express them.
I made a speech recently in which I set out what I thought were
non-negotiable values as a society, very basic values which I
think all groups in society ought to accept. I also said there
are some issues about how we build a shared identity, for instance
whether we have a common language, everyone being able to speak
English, whether we fund that appropriately, what we expect from
people that we ought to think about very, very clearly.
Q212 Martin Horwood: Forgive me for
missing that in that case. Did it for instance include the right
to wear the Niqab or the cross?
Ruth Kelly: No-one is suggesting
that we legislate in this area. Clearly, as a free country and
a free society, people have the right to wear the Niqab or the
cross.
Q213 Martin Horwood: Not everywhere
apparently. Not on British Airways flights or in some schools.
Ruth Kelly: It is for employers
to set the rules for the appropriate context.
Q214 Martin Horwood: So it is a right
which only extends as far as some employers think is or is not
appropriate.
Ruth Kelly: Unless you are suggesting
we legislate on this, we have a right in a free country to be
able to express our religion and to use and celebrate religious
symbols.
Q215 Martin Horwood: Some people
have had that right curtailed, have they not?
Ruth Kelly: I think it is a good
thing. The fact that we have shown such tolerance in our recent
history is to the credit of Britain. It makes Britain an attractive
place to live and I should like to make sure that people continue
to have that right in the future.
Q216 Martin Horwood: Some people
have had that right curtailed by their employer, have they not?
Ruth Kelly: Schools set school
uniforms. Employers set uniforms. We expect them to do so in a
way which is sensitive and in a way which is appropriate.
Dr Pugh: The House of Commons has a dress
code. Try taking your tie off.
Q217 Martin Horwood: I did not quite
catch whether you think it is right for an employer to dictate
dress in a way that some individuals feel inhibits their expression
of their personal beliefs.
Ruth Kelly: In certain contexts
it can be right, for instance in a school. There are certain contexts
in which it is appropriate for people to dress in a particular
way, which may mean certain restrictions. On the whole I think
that as a society we should not only tolerate people's religious
symbols but actually welcome them. I see Britain as a place in
which people can be free to have religious views and I celebrate
that.
Mr Hands: That is a positive note on
which to end my questions.
Q218 Anne Main: The Committee found
that the Government failed in its duty to support the implementation
of the Licensing Act and was concerned that the Gambling Act should
not go the same way. I must declare an interest here. It spurred
me on to spend the summer with gaming, casinos, Tote, Bingo and
all the rest of it. I must admit that I was hearing very, very
confusing messages there about loyalty schemes, advertising, what
is permitted, who is going to be subject to checks and the whole
industry seemed to be absolutely saying that we have just not
been told anything. What has been different about this implementation,
given that the industry was only telling me a matter of months
ago that they still did not know what was going to happen and
councils have to be able to put this into practice?
Ruth Kelly: May I just point out
that DCMS has the lead responsibility both for the guidance and
for the implementation of the guidance?
Chair: We should only be asking about
the guidance. It is not this Committee's remit to talk about the
Gambling Act.
Q219 Anne Main: What I am saying
is that when there is still that fog going on can you have those
sets of guidance in place in time for councils to know how they
are supposed to put this into practice and to be skilled up to
do it?
Ruth Kelly: Currently we are reviewing
progress on how the guidance is being implemented and we continue
to do that as part of cross-government work. It is DCMS which
has the lead responsibility for this.
| 
