Peter Hain MP Creating Cohesion - Reversing Racism

CREATING COHESION - REVERSING RACISM

Peter Hain MP talks to the LGIU Conference, 10 February 2004

As a Member of Parliament for Oldham, I am all too aware of the continued challenge we face in tackling racism and promoting cohesive communities.

I do not see racial discrimination and community cohesion as the same issues, although there are of course overlaps.

There is a huge danger in being complacent over these issues. We have not created the harmonious multicultural society that many support, nor do we have in all instances communities that are at ease with themselves.

We need to do much, much more collectively - at local, national, community and voluntary sector level - to tackle extremism, racism, mutual distrust and hostility that continues to blight many communities if we are to create strong, active and empowered communities increasingly capable of doing things for themselves in the spirit of co-operation and mutual understanding. This is our collective challenge.

The government agenda on race and cohesion

I want to make it clear that we must tackle racism and discrimination head on. It is a well known fact that racism continues to blight many people's lives and must be challenged, wherever it comes from.

I believe that too often we take for granted that people know why racism is bad; we take it as given without bothering to trouble ourselves with the burdensome irritation of explaining why we have to be rid of it.

What did Martin Luther King dream? He dreamt that "my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will be judged not by the colour of their skin but by the content of their character".

John Major in his introduction to his memoirs gave a Conservative description with which I hope we can all agree, he said: "Contempt is the first cousin of hatred. It is best replaced by understanding".

A Left perspective would I suppose see the words of Jean Jacques Rousseau who, in his opening line to Discourses, famously said that man is born free yet everywhere is in chains - one of those links he had in mind was discrimination.

A liberal democracy let alone a meritocracy is incompatible with racial discrimination. It is a matter of equality, of economic efficiency, for many a matter of faith and for all a matter of self-interest.

That is why we have a strong legal framework in the form of the Race Relations Amendment Act 2000. It is there to protect everyone in our society.

It provides the legal imperative to do three crucial things:

Prevent discrimination
Promote equality
Promote good relations between groups (within ethnic minority communities and between ethnic minority and white communities).

It is this third strand of the RRAA that provides a legal framework for promoting community cohesion.

I would add that it is self-evident that good relationships between white communities is a desirable objective as well.

Why is it wrong to discriminate?

Because our very social fabric depends on the principles of fairness and equality; a strong economy needs it. Capital doesn't discriminate only people do. I have been nowhere in the world where good business does not overcome prejudice, but I recognise it is very difficult.

Discrimination and hatred on racial, ethnic or religious grounds threaten our common good because there are enormous social and economic costs.

But we recognise that tackling racial discrimination is only part of the equation. Even if we managed to eradicate it, there is no guarantee that communities will live in harmony. That means recognising the need to address the common experience of disadvantage and exclusion faced by poor white communities as well as ethnic minority communities.

It also means recognising that there are many in society who do not buy into our vision of an inclusive and diverse society. It is staggering that one in seven Britons, for example, believe that the scale of the Nazi Holocaust against Jews is exaggerated (source: recent ICM poll). It is staggering that almost 40% of Britons would prefer to live in areas where people were of the same ethnic background as themselves.

So what are we to do? Ignore this? Condemn it and move on? Or tackle it. You know we must do the latter. We need to do much more to address these attitudes if we are to build genuinely cohesive communities.

Our commitment to promoting cohesion

We are just as determined to ensure that cohesive communities are a reality in all areas. We all need to keep a vigilant eye on what is happening on the ground in local communities and make sure we are genuinely addressing the root causes of conflict and tension wherever they exist.

Before and since 2001, we have sought to provide support to local areas in the form of funding, guidance as well as a longer term programme of work to promote cohesion.

We have provided funding for community support teams to Burnley and Bradford to assist them through a process of change.

As an immediate measure, and in response to the disturbances, we provided funding for diversionary summer activities.

This is now part of the Positive Activities for Young People (PAYP) programme, totalling £25mn in 2003/04, to which the New Opportunities Fund, DfES and the Home Office have contributed. The programme will initially run for three years.

Its success is dramatic. My own local force told me that crime had dropped in the targeted areas by 40 per cent: the kids, I was told, were too tired to get into trouble.

We have also issued joint guidance to local authorities on how to embed cohesion. This was followed by guidance on how to measure community cohesion, for planning purposes. In looking at the Housing Market Renewal Fund, we must ensure it doesn't perpetuate segregation. This is crucial in areas such as east Lancashire.

We also introduced the Community Cohesion Pathfinders Programme: £6mn to build real-life examples of mainstreaming community cohesion in core service delivery in 37 local authorities.

We have also secured a further 2.4 million over three years from DfES toward the Pathfinder in order to increase the focus of community cohesion on education.

There is a stronger emphasis on the community policing aspect of public-order policing.

There is also better communication between local agencies, which has been critical in dealing with tensions on the ground. The Media Practitioner Group (Chaired by Bob Abberley) will be publishing guidance to local authorities (April 2004). This is in recognition of the positive and crucial role they can play in influencing perceptions of race, faith and cohesion in a way that does not inflame tensions.

The purpose of the guidance is to support media organisations to play a positive role in reaching all sections of the community and helping to reduce the polarisation of attitudes to religious, ethnic and national identity. Public perceptions are often heavily influenced at national rather than local level.

Partnerships need to exist between local papers which can ensure proportionate reporting that promotes cohesion.

We are getting cohesion into local authority comprehensive performance assessment (already in District CPA) and performance management frameworks for local strategic partnerships.

The Independent Community Cohesion Panel and HO Community Cohesion Unit are working hard to embed cohesion in a wide range of central government policies and programmes such as housing, regeneration and education.

But there remain enormous challenges ahead such as segregation and hostility between communities which can be exploited by extremists.
If we are to address these challenges, we must:

Make local leadership work

Local agencies and locally elected leaders are at the frontline in making cohesive communities a reality. Elected members must take on the responsibility for making people's lives better locally, and making connections between community cohesion and wider public service delivery.

Tackle extremism

Well performing councils are better placed to counter extremism. Council leaders need to demonstrate that they have a clear vision and commitment to ensuring that all communities live in safe and secure neighbourhoods.

Dealing firmly with those that incite racial hatred is of course a prerequisite. The difficulty is that those who wish to foster hatred and division interact with the very communities where such prejudice is latent or exposed. This could be rural England as Libby Purves has analysed in the Times or could be estates in north-west England with which we believe we are familiar. The point is that the far Right and the disorganised bigots and rumour mongers are active in communities. This is not a blank sheet of paper, or a still target. The far Right have developed the tactics of the agent provocateur. In Oxford pro-black power anti-white graffiti was found to be the work of the white racist intent on causing a reaction and backlash. The riots in northern England were in part - as the Ritchie report identified - provoked.

In January of last year I made a statement regarding anti-white racism and I stand by that statement. I wrote to the CRE asking that all racism by whomever be given and be seen to be given equal condemnation. I believe this to be a pre-requisite of good relations. Of course I recognise that ethnic minorities are most likely to be victims. But if the case against discrimination is equality, then surely each act must be seen as an act against the individual.

My statement created uproar. But I believe it helped to prevent a race riot and this is why: thugs of Asian origin had carried out a series of attacks against white people in areas of my town. In broad daylight they had travelled around and attacked, apparently randomly, white people, especially young women and used racial anti-white language. It was obvious to me that the areas where the attacks were carried out were far Right electoral target areas. These thugs were acting at someone else's bequest, no doubt for money or for more sinister machinations of organised crime.

In defeating such wickedness we must be savvy to its intent.

Be prepared to have difficult debates and share good practice

We need to engage in difficult debates around areas of resentment and frustration fuelled by perceptions of favoured treatment.

I believe that we have turned a chapter; to promote cohesion we must debate it. When my constituents say "I am not racist but . . ." we must listen to the 'but'. We must not compromise, but we must listen.

The removal of racial prejudice would not ensure community cohesion. It would still lead to dispute, rivalry, hatred. We would still not have the community at ease with itself.

Conclusion

We have set the framework. But central government alone cannot make cohesive communities a reality. Local leaders and practitioners are at the forefront of delivering change. Innovative partnerships are crucial if we are to make a lasting difference to this agenda.