| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Keith Vaz: The hon. Gentleman is right to this extent: a person can empathise even if he or she does not have a particular disability. However, I can assure him that people who have a disability know that they have a disability. I remember that when my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington and I were trying to set up black sections in the 1980s, the then leader of the Labour party, who is now a Member of the House of Lords, asked us to define "black." We replied, "People know instinctively whether they are black—they just have to look in the mirror."
Ms Abbott: My hon. Friend takes us back in time. When he said that the commissioners could be 10 white men, the Minister shook her head fiercely. However, the working party that considered the establishment of the commission comprised 28 people of whom only three were from visible minorities. Does he agree that that feeds the concern felt by the black and Asian community that we will find ourselves hopelessly marginalised in the new commission?
Keith Vaz: That is an important point, which must be pursued. The way in which the consultation process has taken place is regrettable. It has taken place at the time when, following the events of 7 July, the Government have been eager to engage with sections of the Asian community by setting up commissions and working parties. As I said earlier, words are okay and statements and speeches can be magnificent—we have made some fantastic statements on diversity—but in the end what counts is our ability to change legislation for the purposes of progress.
Mr. David Winnick (Walsall, North) (Lab): Does my hon. Friend accept that much of the argument against what he is putting forward was put far more strongly 40 years ago when it was argued that there are other forms of discrimination, which undoubtedly existed and which remain, and therefore there was no reason why preference should be given to black and Asians? We have made considerable progress—I do not underestimate that progress when I look at those who occupy the Government Benches and those elsewhere in the country—but the form of discrimination against those who happen not to have a white skin remains. Hence there is undoubtedly an argument—less so now, but the argument of 40 years ago remains—for there to be a committee within the new body that is proposed along the lines that my hon. Friend is proposing. I will be delighted, as I am sure that he will be, when that is no longer necessary.
Keith Vaz: Absolutely. I am so glad that my hon. Friend has taken me on to my second point, which I have been trying to make. I have only two points to make to the House.
John Bercow: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Keith Vaz: I will give way only because it is the hon. Gentleman.
John Bercow:
I am genuinely glad that I have been in my place to listen to the hon. Gentleman's speech. I am
16 Jan 2006 : Column 602
not making a frivolous point. I am trying to underline the rather serious point that he is making by saying that he should not be led astray, in however well-meaning a fashion, by the intervention and the challenge of definition from my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies). May I illustratively point out to the hon. Gentleman an observation that the House has been favoured with in the past by my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell), on the subject of definition? Clement Attlee was once asked to define an elephant, to which he replied that on the whole it was quite difficult to do so but equally, on the whole, when someone had seen one, they knew that they had seen it.
Keith Vaz: We have had Clement Attlee and Lord Halifax, so goodness knows who we are going to hear from next. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that quote, and I shall use it in my next speech.
The issue of policy and decision making will be important. The proposed body will be charged with making policy. The point of having a race committee is that black and Asian people, it is to be hoped, will be able to decide on policy that affects black and Asian people. There will be a voice for them and somewhere for them to go. This is not happening at present.
I say to my hon. Friend the Minister—this is not meant personally to her because she has been a Minister for only the past year—to quote Mario Puzo, that to criticise people is not the business of politics. It is not personal. I think that we have failed in terms of the equality agenda after eight years. I expected more from our Government than we have given. We need to do more. We need more than good speeches about more black people here and more Asian people there. We need to have good laws, which I hope that we shall introduce as part of the measure that is before us. In addition, we must have bodies that will be able to allow the communities to be able to represent themselves. I am sorry that that is not happening. That is lamentable.
Only this morning, there was an article in The Times about the number of police officers who are not only joining the police service, but leaving it. The police service had 4,629 ethnic minority police officers in 2004. That was an 18 per cent. increase on the previous year. Hooray. That is a fantastic record. However, 17.8 per cent. of black and Asian recruits in 2004 resigned or were dismissed within six months of starting their jobs, compared with 7.7 per cent. of white officers.
Last year, 12.6 per cent. of ethnic minority recruits dropped out of the service within six months compared with 7.6 per cent. of white officers, and the figures continue. In that public service—one that is constantly monitored—to see that sort of reaction and to hear stories of racism against police officers makes me wonder what we have been doing over the past generation. We certainly should have done much more. These are lamentable figures for any Government. For me, someone who is passionately committed to the Labour Government—when I told my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Central (Mr. Sarwar) that I was tabling the amendment, he said, "Why are you doing so? You are part of the payroll vote even though you are not on the payroll"—that worries me intensely. I do not mean that as a slight to the Minister because she is not yet on the payroll vote, even though she will be voting for the Bill's passage through the House.
16 Jan 2006 : Column 603
I think that we have let people down. We have lost the plot on equality. We have only reacted since 7 July last year, because we discovered that some people who are trying to destroy the good race relations that we enjoy in this country do not come from Lebanon, have not been trained in Syria, and do not have Iranian connections. They were born and bred in Leeds. That is the challenge for us—which body will take up that mantle and try to deal with that fundamental issue? Will it be the new commission for integration and citizenship? Will it be part of the Phillips review? Will it be the Commission for Racial Equality, or what has been left of it in the past 18 months? Will it be Lee Jasper and the Greater London assembly? Will it be Simon Woolley and the 1990 Trust, or Operation Black Vote? Who will accept that mantle? The hon. Member for Daventry talked about Lord Halifax dividing and ruling, but if we divide the community in that way and do not give its members a focus it is a recipe for disaster.
5.45 pm
Mr. Michael Wills (North Swindon) (Lab): I have been listening very carefully to the case that my hon. Friend is making. While I understand the Government's approach—and I certainly think that our record on equality is rather better than he suggested—I was struck by what appears to be consensus among all black and Asian organisations on the amendment. It is important that the Government always listen, and I hope that they will reconsider their attitude to the amendment in the light of our discussions. I should be grateful, however, if my hon. Friend would spell out in a little more detail the consequences if the amendment fails.
Keith Vaz: Before I respond, may I commend my hon. Friend on his work on Britishness? I read his excellent newspaper article about the concept of Britishness, and it reminds me of a point that I intended to make. Nothing that we say takes away from the fact that a black or Asian person who was born in this country, or who, like me, has emigrated here, has a passion for being British. Nor does it take away from our support for the flag or our commitment to the things that are British. A definition of Britishness, besides including a cup of tea, as an article in The Sun said, should include chicken tikka masala and the music on "Top of the Pops", which is very much dominated by black British musicians. We do not wish to take away from that, and I congratulate my hon. Friend and the Chancellor of the Exchequer—incidentally, I congratulate him on his good news today—on their work on Britishness.
As for my hon. Friend's question, if the amendment fails, members of the black and Asian community will think that the Government have let them down at a time when they need their support. If I were marking them, I would say that they have scored "average" on equality. I expect them to achieve "excellent", and we have four years before the next election to make sure that they do so. May I tell my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary, whom I have known for a number of years, and who believes in what she is doing, that she may choose to take the common-denominator approach, but she should recognise the needs and desires of the communities? I urge her to speak with passion at the Dispatch Box and
16 Jan 2006 : Column 604
to give us the guarantees that we want. I do not want to ask the Deputy Speaker to take the amendment separately so that we can vote on it, as I would have to vote against my own Government, bearing in mind my comments about the non-existence of the payroll vote. However, that needs more than words about wishing and hoping.
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |