Report 2017_Layout 1 26/04/2017 15:10 Page 1

Integration and Minorities Report 2017 Report 2017_Layout 1 26/04/2017 15:10 Page 2

Integration & Minorities Report 2017

Preface

Britain enjoys a rich diversity of race and culture with a high tolerance level for all faiths and none. Over the last few decades we have learnt to become much more inclusive rather than exclusively secular. The race landscape has changed and yet last year we saw at the EU Referendum how political movements and thoughtless rhetoric can arouse emotions of division and hate again.

The Equality and Human Rights Commission’s remit is very wide to look after all of the six strands of equality or inequality: Race, Gender, Disability, Age, Sexual Orientation and Faith. Whereas it’s budget is minimal. Under the Commission for Racial Equality we had regional race councils but there isn’t an equivalent structure under the EHRC. Indeed all six strands of equality need six separate divisions to enable them to look after their own inequalities, though for a jointed approach all six to remain under the one umbrella of EHRC.

This report discusses immigration, multi-culture and radicalisation, and British values for a more open debate. The reports also cites a case study on the inequities at the heart of our Establishment, the House of Lords, exemplified by a sub-case study on how some Lords mischievously attempt to social engineer some well-integrated minorities. These systemic weaknesses can lead to institutional discrimination against the minorities; these overdue reforms – please also see my humble outsider proposals in the report - are a responsibility of the Government.

Diversity in thought, in values, in customs does not lead to segregation so long as we subscribe to a shared sense of belonging to the country we live in, where we can ‘share’ our different values, our different thoughts, our wonderful different cultures – we just have to look at the immense variety of different foods we share in Britain now. Nonetheless the problems of radicalisation plague us where a tiny proportion of people advocate directly opposing values to our own or the different ones we want to share and it is those opposing values of the radical Islamism and the radical extreme right we must reject, as facilitated by the Government’s prevent strategy and any other means.

This report is a discussion document among the relevant interested parties.

Anil Bhanot OBE Chairman Ethnic Minority Foundation

25 April 2017

Page 2 Report 2017_Layout 1 26/04/2017 15:10 Page 3

Integration & Minorities Report 2017

Contents

1. Introduction Page 4

2. Immigration Page 6

3. Race and Multi-cultural Relations Page 10

4. Radicalisation Page 17

5. Integration Page 23

6. Case Study Page 30 Inequalities at the Heart of the Establishment – House of Lords [with proposed reforms for a House of Peers]

7. Caste Legislation Page 61 A subcase study of social engineering by HoL on an integrated community

Glossary

HoC – House of Commons HoL – House of Lords HoP – House of Peers

Page 3 Report 2017_Layout 1 26/04/2017 15:10 Page 4

Integration & Minorities Report 2017

Introduction

This report will focus on a number issues related to integration and minority communities in the UK. Its intended purpose is to generate discussion amongst relevant figures who work in the areas highlighted.

This report will be separated into four main sections; the first will focus on immigration, the second on race relations, the third on radicalisation and the fourth on integration. Integration will be assessed last as this issue has been considered by policy makers as bringing together the other three issues; moreover, this will allow us to explore how policy decisions made by the Government have affected minorities with regard to the other three areas of the report. Several subsections will be included within each section in order to provide further details on specific points, be it a Government report that has been commissioned or an example that illustrates the problem at hand.

The issue of integration has in recent years received increased public and political attention. In particular, integration has been associated with immigration, race relations and anti-radicalisation. It is now generally accepted that immigration is a principal concerns for a majority of the UK electorate, as such, politicians from all parties have also focused on this issue. It is also generally accepted that immigration is being regarded as increasingly negative, in particular due to pressure on public resources and a perception that jobs are being taken away from the host population. These positions became very clear in the debates leading to the referendum on EU membership in June 2016; the pro-Brexit position was predominantly shaped around taking back control of our boarders and restricting the free movement of people from the EU. The result of the referendum made it clear that the majority of the British public wanted to leave the European Union and that they wanted immigration to be controlled.

These public concerns and a rising discontent amongst the UK electorate about levels of immigration for over a decade have resulted in some parallel issues developing. One such issue is a deterioration of race relations; numerous reports indicate that minorities in the UK are suffering from considerable inequalities when compared to the white majority and that discrimination and attacks against minorities are increasing. This problem is exacerbated by the fact that the poor white minority seems to have been left behind by the juggernaut of globalisation, which demands a new skill set for which they have been left unprepared due to a lack of Government training schemes.

In addition, instances of racism in the UK following the EU referendum have increased unprecedentedly. Home Office statistics have confirmed that hate crimes rose 41% following the referendum; although this figure signifies a peak in the weeks immediately after the referendum figures remain far higher when compared to a year earlier1. Racist attacks, both physical and verbal, are becoming increasingly common. Although targeted against EU citizens, this climate of racism has inevitable affected other immigrants in the UK as well as British born ethnic minorities.

Increased racism and unrest amongst minorities has, in turn, exacerbated the decline in race relations. In light of this, in August of 2016 the Equalities and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) carried out a thorough review of the situation. The Race Report: Healing a Divided Britain 2 concluded that racial inequalities persist in the UK; moreover, that they are actually increasing. In

Page 4 Report 2017_Layout 1 26/04/2017 15:10 Page 5

Integration & Minorities Report 2017

education, work, health care, housing and many other areas minorities in the UK are now at a clear disadvantage. The fact that the current social and political climate has damaged race relations has been added to by institutions which were designed to deal with these issues either being dismantled or having their funding cut back.

Besides the above, another issue that has developed parallel to immigration discontent is a growing concern amongst both the public and politicians over radicalisation and the associated risk of terrorism; a concern that increases with every terrorist attack that takes place here and in Europe.

The problems associated with minority inequality, worsening race relations and radicalisation are considered by many as institutional issues; issues that require the establishment to look at itself and how it treats people. There are, though, others who believe that it is not a question of institutional discrimination and inequalities but rather an issue of integration. These people argue that minorities have failed to integrate and that as a result they are not necessarily performing as well as the white majority. We believe, though, that it is in fact a combination of both these elements that is at play and that focusing on this duality rather than distributing blame will be a far more constructive way of going forward.

In line with this we also suggest that when looking at itself the establishment also considers that it has not kept up to speed in the new information age of fast moving facts, even an information overload, as the public begins to sift facts from fiction thus giving rise to populism. Representative democracy is about a thorough engagement with the civil society the establishment represents. As exemplar of the issues in this report we will examine the case of the House of Lords a great institution which is now out of touch, over-bloated, unrepresentative, unequal – indeed one that has shown little respect for the Equality Laws of this great nation.

1 https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/oct/13/hate-crimes-eu-referendum-home-office-figures-confirm 2 https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/en/race-report-healing-divided-britain

Page 5 Report 2017_Layout 1 26/04/2017 15:10 Page 6

Integration & Minorities Report 2017

Immigration

Immigration has become an extremely relevant political issue; an issue that all political parties now address irrespective of their ideological alignment. Largely, the current position taken on immigration is that at current levels it represents a problem for Britain, a problem which we must find a solution to.

In some ways, it is clear why this is an issue that has become so salient; the UK’s net migration has been increasing at a rate that many consider unsustainable. Moreover, despite Government claims that they will tackle this issue and reduce net migration, the figures have in reality continued to grow.

A continuation of the trend shown in the chart above is clear when we look at the latest figures published by the Office of National Statistics (ONS) in December 2016. For the year ending June 2016 the figures were as follows3 :

• NET MIGRATION: +335,000 (similar to YE June 2015), comprising +189,000 EU citizens, +196,000 non-EU citizens and -49,000 British citizens

• IMMIGRATION: 650,000, the highest estimate recorded (up 11,000 (not statistically significant) from YE June 2015)

• EMIGRATION: 315,000 (up 12,000 (not statistically significant) from YE June 2015) Net migration was similar to the YE March 2016 estimate of +326,000.

3 https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/populationandmigration/internationalmigration/bulletins/migrationstatisticsquarterlyreport/dec2016

Page 6 Report 2017_Layout 1 26/04/2017 15:10 Page 7

Integration & Minorities Report 2017

Increases in the number of immigrants entering the UK worry ordinary people for a number of reasons, some cultural and some economic. It should be noted that there has been a tendency by some who argue in favour of immigration to dismiss all such arguments and brand them as led by prejudice. However, there are some real concerns that cannot simply be disregarded even if one believes in the value of immigration.

Amongst people’s concerns is a worry that an increased number of immigrants is resulting in unsustainable pressure being put on resources and services. Highlighted examples of this include the fact that the number of people registered with GPs increased by 1.3 million in the last three years, whilst the number of people visiting A&E increased by 59% between 2003 and 2015. In addition, 250,000 EEA school children came to the UK in 2014, which amounts to £115.3 million in extra spending and extra competition for school placements4 . To balance this concern, though, it also has to be noted that there is research which shows that the tax revenue from migrants is greater than the amount which migrants receive from the state, and that as such they actually do not put pressure on resources as they have a positive fiscal impact5 . Despite these tax contributions from immigrants, the reality is that the Exchequer has not adequately matched this additional revenue to the extra public resources required, meaning that the host community feels unfairly treated in the face of deteriorating standards in public services as a result of this extra pressure due to immigrants.

Another worry regarding an increased number of immigrants concerns jobs; the claim that jobs are “being taken away” has been made by many of those calling for reduced immigration. Work is, indeed, the most common reason for long-term immigration to the UK; the ONS calculates that for the year ending June 2016, when the highest number of arrivals into the UK was recorded at 311,000, 182,000 people were coming to a definite job6 . These numbers are considerable, and many believe that despite helping grow the UK economy they have a negative impact on small to medium size businesses as well as on some individuals; in part as wages can be pushed down7 . As a counter to this position it should be noted that in today’s globalised work businesses need a transfer of skills from other countries when there is a deficit in the local work force. The answer to this problem is not in the hands of political administrators, except to the extent that Government can invest in training schemes for the local work force.

What we would like to consider is: How do you manage the balance for beneficial migration over too much immigration?

A different, but valid concern, which the public has also voiced relates to the threat from extremists8. There is a concern that growing immigration makes it more difficult to control who is coming into the country, therefore making it more difficult to assess whether someone who could be a threat is entering the country. In particular, there have been those who argue that there are a number of potential terrorists who are being given permits to live in other EU countries who could then easily gain access to the UK9 .

4https://www.migrationwatchuk.org/key-topics/public-services-infrastructure 5 http://www.migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/resources/briefings/election-2015-briefing-fiscal-impacts-of-migration-to-the-uk/ 6 https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/populationandmigration/internationalmigration/bulletins/migrationstatisticsquarterlyreport/dec2016 7 https://www.ft.com/content/0deacb52-178b-11e6-9d98-00386a18e39d 8 http://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-global-immigration-poll-idUKKCN12D24O 9 http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/04/22/extremists-free-to-travel-to-uk-because-eu-states-cannot-agree-o/

Page 7 Report 2017_Layout 1 26/04/2017 15:10 Page 8

Integration & Minorities Report 2017

Besides the question of numbers, within the discourse on immigration there also seems to be some confusion amongst the public about: Who is considered an immigrant? The flip side of this, of course, is who is to be considered British? These are important questions when considering policy and future action.

The question of who is British can be looked at in many different ways; for example, it could be limited to a purely legal definition, whereby a British person is somebody who has British citizenship. In reality, though, this is not how the majority of the public is looking at this issue. There are many instances when people gain citizenship but are still considered immigrants due to being foreign born. There are even those who consider British born individuals who have foreign born parents, or even grandparents, as immigrants. It is such views which in turn are having a negative impact on minority groups and individuals in the UK – a point that will be explored further in the next section of the report.

In part, some of the issues linked to minorities and the negative perception and position of immigrants in the UK is related to the fact that Britishness is seen as elusive for foreign born individuals and their descendants; moreover, all immigrants, migrants and minorities are regarded as the same. In reality, though, these groups of people can be extremely different, with different needs and providing different contributions to the country. There is a significant difference in the impact and contribution of those who come to the UK in order to live long-term, to establish themselves and have families, when compared to short term migrants who leave after their work or study is finished.

Alongside the overall rise in immigration, there has been an increase in the number of short term migrants coming to the UK. The latest figures from the ONS show that in 2014 165,000 people came to the UK for 3 to 12 months for either work or study; this was an increase of 43,000 from the previous year10. In addition, in 2015, 49,000 short-term work visas were issued by the Home Office; as well as 63,000 short-term study visas and 60,000 short term-sponsored study visas11 .

There is evidence to show that recent migrants are less likely to report British national identity when compared to more established groups12. However, the data also shows that as individuals stay longer they do increasingly consider themselves to be British. Those who stay in the country a long time have a vested interest in seeing it flourish; Britain is their home, where their children are from, the place that they invest in. The interest of someone who comes to country for a short period of time is understandably different; they will more likely invest in where they are going to go back to.

It should also be noted, though, that the data also shows that the process of becoming associated with Britishness takes a different amount of time for different groups. Moreover, different groups have different understandings of what it means to be British, as there is no clear definition of what this means. Whilst some may be thoroughly committed to Britain and its values, others may be less so yet still consider themselves British.

10 https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/populationandmigration/internationalmigration/bulletins/shortterminternationalmigrationannualreport/mid2014estimates 11 https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/populationandmigration/internationalmigration/bulletins/shortterminternationalmigrationannualreport/mid2014estimates 12 http://www.ethnicity.ac.uk/medialibrary/briefingsupdated/who-feels-british.pdf

Page 8 Report 2017_Layout 1 26/04/2017 15:10 Page 9

Integration & Minorities Report 2017

13

The question we would like to address is: How do we measure, pragmatically as opposed to academically, what it means to be British?

In addition, a very serious concern is that within the current political climate, with immigration being perceived so negatively, all immigrants, irrespective of how long they have been here for or how long they are planning to stay, and in many cases irrespective of whether they are immigrants or rather members of a minority group, are often being regarded as if they are not investing in Britain, as if they are taking away from the country and giving nothing back.

It is therefore crucial that we investigate how to mitigate the negative impact on minorities from issues associated with immigration.

13https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjVhPLp3pTSAhUDL8AKHVKKC4kQFggdMAA&url =http%3A%2F%2Fcep.lse.ac.uk%2Fpubs%2Fdownload%2Fcp224.pdf&usg=AFQjCNFie6lU7NxO05A5ptmvDt4z_g5z3Q&bvm=bv.147134024,d.ZGg

Page 9 Report 2017_Layout 1 26/04/2017 15:10 Page 10

Integration & Minorities Report 2017

Race and Multi-Cultural Relations

The issues mentioned in the previous section regarding the perception of minorities as a result of concerns about immigration are one element of a bigger problem faced by minorities, the decline of race relations in Britain as a result of service cuts and as the result of policy changes. In part, this is an issue that has become increasingly pressing as a result of the political climate and public attitudes.

The policy shift and cuts in services that have exacerbated this situation where interlinked, they were also particularly linked to David Cameron’s time as Prime Minister (2010-2016). Of course, this is by no means an insinuation that it was Cameron’s intention for race relations to suffer. However, his naïve understanding of some contentious policy areas, and brushing aside of difficult policy work which instead was replaced by a policy-making environment in a conciliatory cocoon of like-minded public school educated – cash for access - advisors who had no community experience, meant that the situation developed in this way.

After the September 11th attacks on the Unites States, Tony Blair launched a ‘working together’ initiative with the aim of bringing together people from all faiths and cultures14 . This meant that there was a focus in the UK on promoting multiculturalism with an inter faith element; the idea was for different cultures to interact with each other and thereby learn to respect each other’s ways of life whilst also conforming to the indigenous British culture. On the whole, this approach worked well; although some world events occasionally stirred cultural and faith emotions with some of our youth becoming radicalised, the Iraq war was such an issue. The July 7th bombing in London by radicalised Islamists, on the other hand, led to a strengthening of this multicultural policy, with it developing into what came to be known as state-multiculturalism.

The policy of state-multiculturalism was disbanded by David Cameron following a speech he made in Germany in 2011. He claimed that that ‘state-multiculturalism’ had failed and that it had actually been counterproductive in the fight against radicalisation and terrorism. As an alternative to multiculturalism, Cameron posited a stronger national identity15 . Although this amounted to a significant political shift, Cameron never defined what he meant by multiculturalism. By default, though, what was to follow was the model of UK Business PLC, whereby it was needed for Diversity to be shown as positive; as a result in the definitions used 'Diversity' became separated from 'Multi-Culture', which was in turn shunned as "different groups co-existing but retaining their independent cultural identities"16.

Despite Government policy, the reality is that multiculturalism is something that happens in society; moreover, it is something that has continued in Britain despite its failure being hailed. The range of diversity of people in the UK is ever growing, the impact of globalisation and ease with which people can now move from one place to another not only facilitates this but means that it is something that most likely will not only continue but actually grow. An example of successful multiculturalism is the fact that the Hindu festival of Holi is well celebrated amongst native English people.

Besides the positive aspects of multiculturalism, there is a darker element that must not be negated.

14 https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2001/oct/02/labourconference.labour6 15 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-12371994 16 https://academic.oup.com/jrs/article-lookup/doi/10.1093/jrs/fen016

Page 10 Report 2017_Layout 1 26/04/2017 15:10 Page 11

Integration & Minorities Report 2017

Patriarchal cultures bring with them a family control which goes against the modern liberal values of Western culture. There are certain cultural practices which people have brought to the UK which clash with our laws and accepted practices. Two stark examples of this are forced marriage and female genital mutilation (FGM). Although commonplace in a number of places, these two practices are illegal in the UK, with both of them recognised as forms of violence. Considerable efforts have been made by the Government to tackle cases of FGM and forced marriage. The Home and Foreign Offices have worked together, and in conjunction with civil society organisations, to clearly define both forced marriage and FGM. Information has been made readily available in order for these issues, which have for years gone undetected due to their sensitive nature and due to them being considered taboo subjects, to be brought to the forefront; frontline professionals who may come into contact with victims, such as teachers and doctors, have been given guidelines on how to proceed when they suspect something is wrong. Within the criminalisation of these practices and efforts to prevent them, there have also been efforts to work closely with the communities that are most likely to be affected. In part, the clear definition of what these practices are has aimed to ensure that members of these communities do not feel discriminated against; for example, there have been clear efforts to differentiate forced marriage from arranged marriage. The work of organisations such as Jasvinder Sanghera’s Karma Nirvana and Aneeta Prem’s Freedom Charity on these issues has been admirable. We at EMF also worked on the issue of forced marriage, taking part in consultations and offering information and support to victims.

From the criminalisation of these practices we can learn the importance of definition and of Government working in conjunction with the community. Although both of these issues persist, they are being controlled as much as possible and adequately dealt with by the law. In the following section on radicalisation we come back to these points; there have been failings on both these points when it comes to radicalisation. From a cultural perspective, there are instances in which ancient religious texts are being taken literally and thereby clashing with current laws and acceptable practices; for example with the case of homosexuality. Of course, this does not mean that we should not engage with religion, quite the opposite, we must interact with religion in order for a better understanding to be achieved and for religions to align with modern society. Religious tenets can be mutually exclusive, but we believe that an inclination towards interfaith dialogue can result in positive steps and understanding of these, and thus in greater social cohesion. Within all of this we must not forget that all actions have to be subject to the law of the land. A nation’s values are underwritten by its laws.

As mentioned above, policy shifts during the Cameron administration were coupled with cuts in services that dealt with race relations. A series of institutions that were in place to deal with racial inequality and minorities have been slowly dismantled over the last decade. The Commission for Racial Equality, the purpose of which was to address racial discrimination and promote racial equality, was dismantled and merged into the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) in 2007 under Tony Blair’s Premiership. The EHRC absorbed three different organisations which dealt with different aspects of equality; many argued at the time that the specificity of the work of each organisation would be lost as a result, thereby decreasing their effectiveness. Alongside this loss in

Page 11 Report 2017_Layout 1 26/04/2017 15:10 Page 12

Integration & Minorities Report 2017

specificity, the Equality Act 2010 added further strands which were to be covered by equality legislation such as ‘Faith’; however, the EHRC had no resources allocated to deal with these new inequality strands. Instead, the EHRC’s capacity to work was hindered by significant budget cuts since 2010; its budget was progressively reduced from £62 million to £17.1 million in 2016. Alongside the financial cutback the EHRC workforce has also been cut from around 500 to around 20017 .

Other organisations that worked in the area of community relations also suffered cuts. For example, with the aim of halting state-multiculturalism the Faith Communities Consultative Council (FCCC) was dismantled in 2011 by Sir Eric Pickles, the Secretary of State for the Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG). The FCCC had been set up in 2006 to facilitate communication between government and civil servants and religious communities and interreligious groups. Pickles, though, did not understand faith communities, many even felt shut-out by him, and hence the decline in engagement with them, he was well suited to the Local Government part of the DCLG but came across quite detached from the Communities part of the DCLG. Unfortunately, a side-effect of side-lining the minority communities and not fostering inter-faith relations was that radicalism began to brew under the surface without any positive leadership to offer guidance. Baroness Warsi as the faith minister also did not quite help the interaction as she seemed pre- occupied with one religion. Besides merely offering diversity in colour and faith, the FCCC offered diversity in thought. Interaction between different ideas and finding a common ground is how true integration happens; this is what was sacrificed by Pickles by disbanding the FCCC.

Regional race relations offices which dealt with race problems and provided people with legal recourse to their discrimination cases were also disbanded; such a system remains in place in Scotland, but in England and Wales people have ever reduced resources.

As an exemplar of declining race relations many point to the fact that Britain is now experiencing growing inequality. The matter is particularly pressing for the black community, who “have a reduced chance of getting into university, getting a job, owning a home…conversely your chances of being unfairly treated by the police and of serving a longer sentence in prison for committing the same offence as a white person are increased”18. The extent of inequality in the UK was thoroughly examined by the Equalities and Human Rights Commission in August 2016 through The Race Report: Healing a Divided Britain19 . The Report’s findings were concerning, they showed that not only was inequality persisting in the UK, it was actually increasing. Amongst their key findings were:

Employment

• Unemployment rates were significantly higher for ethnic minorities at 12.9% compared with 6.3 % for White people. • Black workers with degrees earn 23.1% less on average than White workers. • In Britain, significantly lower percentages of ethnic minorities (8.8%) worked as managers, directors and senior officials, compared with White people (10.7%). This was particularly true for

17 http://www.disabilitynewsservice.com/fresh-staff-cuts-at-ehrc-will-undermine-its-vital-work/ 18 http://www.runnymedetrust.org/blog/how-the-next-government-can-reduce-racial-inequality9 19 https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/en/race-report-healing-divided-britain

Page 12 Report 2017_Layout 1 26/04/2017 15:10 Page 13

Integration & Minorities Report 2017

African/Caribbean/Black people (5.7%) and those of Mixed ethnicity (7.2%). • Black people who leave school with A-levels typically get paid 14.3% less than their White peers.

Education

• Just 6% of Black school leavers attended a Russell Group university, compared with 12% of Mixed and Asian school leavers and 11% of White school leavers. • Black Caribbean and Mixed White/Black Caribbean children have rates of permanent exclusion about three times that of the pupil population as a whole.

Crime

• Rates of prosecution and sentencing for Black people were three times higher than for White people –18 per thousand population compared with six per thousand population for White people. For sentencing it was 13 per thousand population for Black people and five per thousand population for White people. • In England and Wales ethnic minority children and adults are more likely to be a victim of homicide. The homicide rate for Black people was 30.5 per million population, 14.1 for Asian people and 8.9 for White people. • White women are more at risk of domestic abuse than ethnic minority women. 7.4 % reported being victims of abuse compared with 4.4 % of ethnic minority women. • Race hate crimes on Britain’s railway networks have risen by 37 %. • In England, 37.4% of Black people and 44.8% of Asian people felt unsafe being at home or around their local area, compared with 29.2% of White people.

Living standards

• Pakistani/Bangladeshi and Black adults are more likely to live in substandard accommodation than White people. 30.9 % of Pakistani/Bangladeshi people live in overcrowded accommodation, while for Black people the figure is 26.8% and for White people it is 8.3%. • If you are an ethnic minority person, you are still more likely to live in poverty. Our evidence shows that 35.7% of ethnic minorities were more likely to live in poverty compared with 17.2% of White people. • In Scotland, ethnic minority households are more likely to experience overcrowding. This was 11.8% for ethnic minority households compared with 2.9% for White households.

Health and care

• Black African women had a mortality rate four times higher than White women in the UK. • There is a significant disproportionate number of ethnic minorities detained under mental health legislation in hospitals in England and Wales – Black African women were seven times more likely to be detained than White British women. • Gypsies, Travellers and Roma were found to suffer poorer mental health than the rest of the population in Britain. They were also more likely to suffer from anxiety and depression.

Page 13 Report 2017_Layout 1 26/04/2017 15:10 Page 14

Integration & Minorities Report 2017

The political establishment needs to consider what course of action to take as this situation cannot be allowed to continue. Although of course it is important to note when considering these issues that this problem is relative. The situation and living standards of all communities in the UK have improved over the years. There is also considerable legislation in place which deals with discrimination and which ensures that formal equality is available to all in the UK. It is the relative inequality between groups that remains an issue.

Such inequality is particularly concerning as it is coupled with racial discrimination reaching levels not seen for a very long time in this country. As a clear example of this we can look at what happened following the referendum on UK membership of the European Union in summer 2016. Since the referendum there has been a significant increase in the number of hate crimes reported to the police. Just four days after the referendum online reported hate crimes to police had increased by 57% when compared with the previous month. The prominent message behind this increase in hate crimes has been, “we voted leave, so you have to leave”. European as well as non-European immigrants seems to be the target, as well as Britain’s ethnic minorities. People who have been in the UK for decades, as well as people who were born in the UK, are reporting that they do not feel welcome in Britain. The severity of the incidents has varied widely; children have been targeted, old people, workers, anyone who is perceived as ‘foreign’.

Page 14 Report 2017_Layout 1 26/04/2017 15:10 Page 15

Integration & Minorities Report 2017

Many have reported that considering the tone of some within the vote leave campaign that it is not surprising that those with a racist agenda feel justified in their post-referendum actions. During the campaign migrants were described in an extremely negative way. The increasingly hostile tone towards immigrants is not a new phenomenon, UKIP has previously implied that Muslims “hate us and want to kills us”, whilst also warning of a “Romanian crime wave”. During the referendum campaign though such language was intensified, including a campaign poster vilifying migrants that was reported to the police for its resemblance to Nazi propaganda. Politicians invariably have little understanding of the damage they can cause to society when they act obsessively to advance party agendas. Although the sentiments of Nigel Farage’s regarding freedom of movement may have been shown to be supported by the majority of the population in the Referendum, there is a need for politicians to act responsively and take note of the impact of their words.

Not taking note of the public role they hold and the impact that their words and actions can have, means that some legitimate concerns which people have are tarnished by the actions of the few, as for example in the case of racist attacks. The opposition to free movement of people has been labelled by many commentators as racist irrespective of the reasons for opposition; in part this has been due to the high jacking of this position by some on the far right. A particular concern with free movement that is being lost in this rhetoric is the issue of the enormous refugee crisis the world is currently witnessing. Some countries within the EU, including the UK, have tried to maintain a strict

Page 15 Report 2017_Layout 1 26/04/2017 15:10 Page 16

Integration & Minorities Report 2017

limit and rigorous vetting process for the refugees that are allowed to settle. However, other EU countries have much lesser requirement and far larger quotas. The concern for those opposed to free movement is that once these people obtain citizenship of any EU country they will then be able to move to the UK; as an example of this having happened already they point to the case of Somalis gaining Dutch and Danish citizenship and then moving to the UK20.

Whilst the humanitarian argument to give refuge to those fleeing war-torn states is compelling and admirable, the issue is that the ordinary, less well off, people are concerned about the added pressure on already suffering resources, such as schools and the NHS – in spite of those immigrants helping to run these sectors - and some point to an added threat on security which could add to the problem of radicalisation, whilst also there was generally an added pressure on housing, driving rents up. Thus British people’s fears from the free movement of people from Europe or via Europe led to rejecting this lopsided 4th principle of the European project. The EU clearly has no coherent policy on Refugees, nor a sensible protection of the minority religions persecution of Christians and Yazidis in the war torn areas.

In any case the way the EU Leave campaign played on the fears of Britons regarding the free movement of people to the UK via the EU route was rash – Breaking Point poster above - which brought about a nasty level of racism. Now these growing levels of racism are a concern which have to be taken very seriously; especially when coupled with the fact that institutions that were in place to deal with such issues have had their resources cut. Therefore, it is important to ask what can we do to tackle racism, how, with what resources, which institutions, can we ensure public can turn to when they face inequalities.

For a positive development we welcome the Prime Minister Theresa May’s launch of the race disparity audit in August of last year21 . The audit of public services aims to reveal racial disparities and help end any injustices that people experience. EMF took part in the research undertaken as part of the audit and found it extremely helpful and a very positive initiative.

20 http://www.emfoundation.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/EU_Referendum_FinalAnalysis_Report3_19jun16.pdf 21 https://www.gov.uk/government/news/prime-minister-orders-government-audit-to-tackle-racial-disparities-in-public-service-outcomes

Page 16 Report 2017_Layout 1 26/04/2017 15:10 Page 17

Integration & Minorities Report 2017

Radicalisation

An issue that has been extremely influential and steered Government policy on issues of race, immigration and integration, has been a concern with radicalisation. As mentioned in the previous section, David Cameron’s 2011 speech on the failure of multiculturalism emphasised that it had actually been a counterproductive pursuit in the fight against radicalisation and extremists22 . The issue of radicalised extremists, moreover, has become a global concern since the September 11 attacks on New York City in 2001. Since then, terrorist attacks have increased the world over, as extremist ideologies gain growing support, an apparent discontent with modernity, globalisation and the established political order has pushed an increasing number of people towards positions which only a few years ago would have been considered unimaginable. The principal concern, and where most of the focus has been placed, when regarding extremists has been Muslim fundamentalism.

Although of concern for the 15 years since the September 11 attacks, the current government position to deal with extremism has been in place since 2015. Before this new policy came into place, a gradual shift had become evident in how policy makers wanted to deal with the problem; the focus moved from preventing terrorist attacks to preventing radicalisation and in turn preventing terrorist attacks. The rationale behind this policy shift, which was brought in by Theresa May during her time as Home Secretary, was that the vast majority of those who perpetrated terrorist attacks in Europe during this time were home grown terrorists, that is to say, people who were radicalised. The severity of this issue and how seriously it was taken can be highlighted by Cameron referring to the fight against Islamist extremism as one of the “greatest challenges of our generation”23 . We believe that this policy shift and new focus showed political maturity; although there was a need for change when in 2011 Cameron professed multiculturalism over, reform would have proven more beneficial than the attempted overhaul. The gradual shift and consideration that went into the policy launched by May will hopefully rectify some of the associated problems.

Before being able to tackle the problem the Home Office rightly decided to first provide a definition of what it means by extremism: The vocal or active opposition to fundamental British values, including democracy, the rule of law, individual liberty and the mutual respect and tolerance of different faiths and beliefs. We also regard calls for the death of members of our armed forces as extremist24.

In order to then tackle radicalisation and extremism the Government came up with a Counter- Extremism Policy which consisted of a four-pronged strategy:

1. Countering extremist ideology: We will continue to confront and challenge extremist propaganda, ensuring no space goes uncontested, including online, promoting a better alternative, and supporting those at risk of radicalisation. 2. Building a partnership with all those opposed to extremism: We will go further to stand with and build the capacity of mainstream individuals, community organisations and others in our society who work every day to challenge extremists and protect vulnerable individuals.

23 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-12371994 23 https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/470088/51859_Cm9148_Accessible.pdf 24 https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/jun/29/cameron-backing-theresa-may-counter-extremism-strategy-fundamental-shift

Page 17 Report 2017_Layout 1 26/04/2017 15:10 Page 18

Integration & Minorities Report 2017

3. Disrupting extremists: We will create new targeted powers, flexible enough to cover the full range of extremist behaviour, including where extremists sow division in our communities and seek to undermine the rule of law. 4. Building more cohesive communities: We will review, understand and address the reasons why some people living here do not identify with our country and our values. A new Cohesive Communities Programme will help those communities most at risk of isolation25.

An intrinsic part of the Government’s policy to fight extremism is the Prevent strategy, which “seeks to deal with those individuals and groups promoting division and hatred, and with the factors that predispose individuals or groups to respond to terrorist ideologies”26. As part of Prevent, public sector organisations, including schools, where children are educated and colleges of further education, the civil service and local authorities, are subject to a duty to prevent people being drawn to terrorist.

Although the need for a strategy to deal with extremism is clearly evident, and many have applauded the Government’s efforts to tackle such a pressing and difficult issue, there has also been considerable criticism of the way in which Prevent has been carried out. These criticisms resulted in the UK’s terror watchdog commissioning an independent review into the strategy after the voicing of concerns that it was actually resulting in the Muslim community feeling targeted. After looking at the situation the independent reviewer, David Anderson QC, reported in February 2016 that for British Muslims, Prevent had become a “significant source of grievance...encouraging mistrust to spread and to fester”. Moreover, he found that elements of Prevent were “ineffective or being applied in an insensitive or discriminatory manner”27. A year on from these remarks, as Mr Anderson leaves his position as independent reviewer; he has warned that the Prevent strategy is not trusted by “a very large number of decent British Muslims”28.

It is imperative that anti-extremist strategies do not discriminate against particular minority groups; especially during a time of raised racial tensions. With the issue of Islamic fundamentalism it has to be noted that the vast majority of Muslims in Britain actually identify as British, like any other group amongst the population, they are appalled by the actions taken by Islamists.

25https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/470088/51859_Cm9148_Accessible.pdf 26 http://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Summary/CBP-7238 27http://data.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/committeeevidence.svc/evidencedocument/home-affairs-committee/countering-extremism/written/27920.pdf 28https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/feb/20/max-hill-independent-reviewer-terrorism-legislation-david-anderson-prevent

Page 18 Report 2017_Layout 1 26/04/2017 15:10 Page 19

Integration & Minorities Report 2017

29

Here, though, the problem again comes back to what is to be considered as British. The coupling by the Government of the values that should be upheld with Britshness seems to suggest that these values could not be upheld by someone who is not British. In the case of law abiding Muslims and the Prevent strategy this coupling seems to be resulting in serious problems. Rather than addressing radicalisation directly a broad community is being targeted, which not only makes this community feel discriminated against it also hinders the fight against extremism as these people can in turn become less likely to collaborate in the fight and may even be drawn to extremist ideas themselves as they feel the system is failing them.

Besides these issues with the Prevent strategy it should also be noted that there many Muslims who have been working on the ground, alongside the Government, to make the Prevent strategy work. People who are working to help de-radicalise and sway people towards mainstream Islam. Moreover, many working on the matter have pointed out that it is far from true that all Muslim’s oppose Prevent; they note the numerous Mosques and community organisations that are working in conjunction with the Government on this important issue. The particular relevance of Prevent for Muslim women is also highlighted, a group that has at times been otherwise disenfranchised30. Besides this support it has also been reported, notably by Sara Khan in her book The Battle for British Islam: Reclaiming Muslim Identity from Extremism, that there are some who are actively promoting this

29 http://www.ethnicity.ac.uk/medialibrary/briefingsupdated/who-feels-british.pdf 30 http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/religionpublicsphere/2016/10/the-anti-prevent-lobby-are-dominating-the-discourse-not-all-muslims-oppose-prevent/

Page 19 Report 2017_Layout 1 26/04/2017 15:10 Page 20

Integration & Minorities Report 2017

false idea that all Muslims in Britain are opposed to Prevent. Similarly, the Quilliam foundation has also spoken favourably of Prevent31.

It is also very important to note that many amongst those who state that there are Muslims who support Prevent have also warned that those who oppose Prevent at times intimidate people in the community with a different position to their own. It has been argued by Sara Kahn, who actively works to support Prevent, that Muslim organisations like her own are vilified and there are attempts to intimidate people into silence. Moreover, she goes on to claim that Islamist organisations have actively led a campaign of misinformation to discredit Prevent. “These Islamists have not only partnered with teaching unions, students, lawyers, teachers and academics in an attempt to end Prevent, they have sought to malign the many Muslim organisations who do support it creating a “toxic” climate where many Muslims do not want to openly admit their support for Prevent. As a result the loud anti-Prevent lobby end up dominating the discourse – and narrative about Prevent”. In addition, concern has also been voiced about the positioning of Muslim lobby organisations. One particular group, Mend (Muslim Engagement and Development), has been cited as concerning; not only is the head of this group someone who has spoken in support of Islamist positions, but amongst its speakers are individuals who have openly voiced their opposition to democracy. As this is an organisation that lobbies and donates to politicians and political campaigns, the fact that it has been argued that it is a “front to win political access and influence for Islamists” is of grave concern.

Such underhand behaviour is but one example of the serious issues that arise from Islamist ideology. This is an ideology which is trying to defeat our system; it is not merely trying to divide us or strengthen their own position, we must be clear about the danger the ideology poses as otherwise we will never be able to defeat them. Another clear example of this are the terrorist actions of so called ‘lone wolves’, attacks such as those recently witnessed in London whereby an individual drove a car into a crowd of people killing and injuring significant numbers. When a sole individual can be driven to carry out such behaviour by ideas, we cannot negate that these ideas are the problem.

Thus the ‘online’ or ‘internet’ or ‘social-media’ being the source of radicalisation is a denial of the root cause of the problem, which is in the Islamist ideology, and the majority of Muslims whom we know abhor what is happening in the name of their religion need to continue tackling this ideology problem.

With the above in mind we believe that although important to continually reform Prevent, it is not a policy that should simply be discarded by those who refuse to see it’s value; especially as its aims are so important in the difficult fight against radicalisation. Within any potential reforms of the policy attention must be paid to the problem of Islamophobia. Although groups such as Mend have hijacked this problem, it is a very serious issue and one that in reality does affect many people. In light of this the work of organisations such Fiyaz Mughal’s Tell MAMA project, which records and measures anti-Muslim incidents in the UK should be praised.

31 http://www.quilliaminternational.com/quilliams-response-to-uk-governments-new-prevent-policy/ 32 http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/religionpublicsphere/2016/10/the-anti-prevent-lobby-are-dominating-the-discourse-not-all-muslims-oppose-prevent/ 33 http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4396832/Islamist-head-Muslim-pressure-group.html 34 http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/11488175/The-baroness-Islamic-extremists-and-a-question-of-free-speech.html 35 http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/11488175/The-baroness-Islamic-extremists-and-a-question-of-free-speech.html

Page 20 Report 2017_Layout 1 26/04/2017 15:10 Page 21

Integration & Minorities Report 2017

Islamophobia though very real for the victims nonetheless has to be managed cautiously by the community leaders as otherwise an over-emphasis can arouse a victim-mentality culture and at worst can part contribute to radicalisation. It’s never the case that marginalised or disenfranchised youth turn to a radical let out; rather complex factors contribute to radicalisation, which in turn to Islamophobia - the innocent voiceless integrated Muslims become the real victims.

The Tamil Tigers had tried to siphon money off a couple of temples about 10 years ago but the situation was controlled internally by the community without succumbing to the LTTE pressures, the purity of worshippers donations was safeguarded by the temples executive courageously working with the then General Secretary Anil Bhanot of Hindu Council UK, an umbrella body. Likewise around then there were pressures on the Hindu Council UK to coin the term ‘Hinduphobia’ for various issues the Hindu community was suffering, including attacks on their Deities but the General Secretary rejected the concept in its entirety, not least for its victimhood side effects. Of course the communities problems are always different, their ideologies are different, world issues that influence the impressionable minds are different but we must think of resolutions by putting the community first, for long term enduring solutions.

What is important is to ensure we keep engaging with people across the spectrum however much their views may seem unreasonable. Thus when considering reforms nobody should be alienated or ignored, though, in order to be more effective anti-extremism strategies need to ensure that they clearly define the problem at hand and today we are faced with the Islamist ideology that needs a clear definition. A lack of clarity makes the strategies themselves less effective; moreover, an attempt to maintain political correctness when talking about the issues at hand can actually cause secondary problems. A clear example of this was the scandal in Rotherham of a gang of Pakistani men grooming young girls for sex over a period of several years. It was quite clear form early on what the demographic characteristics of the perpetrators where. However, a desire to be politically correct and not incite racial divisions meant that the case was not always reported directly by reference to the men as of Pakistani heritage; rather, the point was whitewashed and they were referred to as men of Asian origin. Many Muslim and Pakistanis in the area understandably did not want to be associated with the despicable acts carried out by these criminal gangs. However, the reference to the men as Asian, in turn, tarnished the perception of the many Asian communities who were not involved in this scandal and who could also have been the victims. This point is particularly salient as there was considerable under reporting of the fact that these men not only targeted white girls, but also Asian girls from other communities36.

This is not to say that men of other ethnic groups do not indulge in such gross criminal behaviour but this particular problem did involve largely Pakistani men who needed to be identified as such so their own community could take corrective measures against them but more widely root out any ideological problems such as women being treated as chattels and not respected as equals regardless of their ethnicity. Some of these problems take root in poor schooling and supplementary schools policy needs to be strengthened more and continuously.

36 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-south-yorkshire-28951612

Page 21 Report 2017_Layout 1 26/04/2017 15:10 Page 22

Integration & Minorities Report 2017

This situation leads us to some questions. Tax payers’ money is often seen as an easy resource by Ministers, as if throwing money at a problem like this will solve such horrific behaviour. Fool-hardy schemes like the troubled families scheme launched in 2011, for example, which was shown to have no impact despite costing £1.3 billion37. Further one minority community can be favoured by a political party over other minorities and that creates inter-community resentments. In order to avoid such situations there is a need for greater transparency and accountability. In order to ensure value for money – it was refreshing to see Priti Patel doing value for money audits recently on the Department for International Developments budgets - to ensure checks and balances were in place, and whether the money was used in the right way, would a select committee that had sufficient powers not be beneficial? The public purse should certainly not be used as a tool to ease the conscience of those we entrust power over it to.

For entire communities, such as Asians in the Rotherham case or Muslims as a result of Prevent, to not be tarnished by negative representations, it is imperative that many of the positive elements associated with minority individuals are also highlighted. This would emphasise the point to the public that the issue we are fighting against is radicalisation, not minorities. Furthermore, just as we welcome the definition for ‘anti-semitism’ each problem should be clearly defined first and then action taken, with the help of the stake-holders, to eradicate it.

It is important to add that in the fight against extremism the extreme right must not be forgotten. They are a group that is also identified by the government as problematic in all of its documentation on the matter. The potency of the extreme right, like that of Islamists, has been increasing to worrying levels throughout the Western world. In part, the extreme right in Europe and here at home is being fuelled by the Islamist position and propaganda that is in turn made by the far right to exaggerate the extent of this problem and target entire minority groups or religions as the issue which native populations should be concerned with. The success of the extreme right in such campaigns has resulted in a tangible increase in Islamophobia, reported incidents having gone up more than 300% in recent years38 . It is therefore just as important to tackle the extreme right, who is posing a tangible threat to minority communities.

Recent government initiatives have been implemented to try and counter extreme right propaganda. The Prime Minister Theresa May has allocated £60 million to fight extremism; with an amount of money being set aside for fighting the myths perpetuated by the extreme right. The Home Office is aiming to challenge hate speech through social media campaigns. In addition, the Government has commissioned M&C Saatchi to produce ten campaigns a year aimed at countering the appeal of the extreme right39. The success of these is imperative, as an increase in hate crimes in the end affects all minority communities, as intolerance for difference increases everyone finds themselves targeted.

Perhaps a multiculturalism tsar could be beneficial when dealing with these difficult issues?

38 http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/brexit-muslim-racism-hate-crime-islamophobia-eu-referendum-leave-latest-a7106326.html 39 https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/feb/06/uks-government-hires-advertising-giant-as-it-fights-far-right-threat

Page 22 Report 2017_Layout 1 26/04/2017 15:10 Page 23

Integration & Minorities Report 2017

Integration

Integration is central to the current Government approach on immigration, race relations and radicalisation. In an attempt to assess the current situation in the country and thereby adequately direct policy the Government commissioned a considerable review into integration and opportunity; the Casey Review was published in December 2016. Whilst providing a thorough review of the current situation and literature on the matter, rather than guiding policy the Review was constrained by Government policy in place for several years, resulting in this Review being used as a tool to highlight the importance of promoting shared British values for successful integration. The Review acknowledges that integration itself is a concept that is difficult to define and that definitions are considerably varied. Irrespective, a definition is attempted by Casey:

integration is the extent to which people from all backgrounds can get on – with each other, and in enjoying and respecting the benefits that the United Kingdom has to offer, such as: our values of democracy, fairness, the rule of law, freedom of speech, inclusiveness, tolerance and equality between citizens regardless of gender, ethnicity, religion or sexuality; the opportunities and security that come from a good education, access to a strong labour market with a guaranteed minimum wage, and a welfare state that includes the National Health Service and support for people when they fall on hard times or are vulnerable; and our institutions, norms and idiosyncrasies – from the Monarchy and the BBC to queuing and talking about the weather, loving and hating all these things at once - which, while identifiable as quintessentially British, we refuse to have written down, fixed or imposed on us but in which we take great pride.

This definition is in line with previous definitions provided by the Government which state that “integration means creating conditions for everyone to play a full part in national and local life”. 40 As with the definition provided in the Casey Review, this definition also goes on to state the importance of shared values: “we believe that core values and experiences must be held in common. We should be robustly promoting British values such as democracy, rule of law, equality of opportunity and treatment, freedom of speech and the rights of all men and women to live free of persecution of any kind. It is these values which make it possible for people to live and work together”41.

Although the Review acknowledges that there are different definitions of integration, we feel that not enough assessment of these other definitions is carried out. Moreover, we feel that the definition chosen by Casey is, to a great extent, driven by the policy position chosen by the Government which the Review is advocating. The way in which integration has been regarded has changed in the UK in recent years. A focus on promoting multiculturalism was replaced, as mentioned in the section on Race Relations, and emphasis was placed on promoting a stronger national identity42 ; from which has developed the idea of shared British values advocated in the Casey Review. Otherwise it has to be acknowledged that the report offers considerable empirical data bringing out many issues we need to develop resolutions for – this report itself is partly a consequence of Dame Casey’s report.

40 https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/7504/2092103.pdf 41 https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/7504/2092103.pdf 42 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-12371994

Page 23 Report 2017_Layout 1 26/04/2017 15:10 Page 24

Integration & Minorities Report 2017

Unlike in the Government documents that deal with the question of integration, there have been those who have actually devoted considerable time to attempting to define integration. Like Casey, those who have set out to do this acknowledge that integration has an array of meanings. Some have gone as far as to state that “integration is a chaotic concept: a word used by many but understood differently by most”43. Although this could lead us to believe that integration is therefore not a useful concept to use, the fact that it “remains significant both as a stated policy goal and as a targeted outcome” means that we must continue to use it. However, it also means that attempts should be made at finding the working definition that is most useful. There are several core domains of integration that have been identified by academics working on this topic. These are: employment, housing, education, health, social bridges, social bonds, social links, language and cultural knowledge, safety and stability and rights and citizenships. The relation between some of these and integration is perhaps more obvious than others. Employment, for example, is seen as promoting economic independence, allowing individuals to make future plans, providing an opportunity for mixing with the host society and improving language skills. Housing can also provide an opportunity for mixing with the broader community within the neighbourhood. Education increases employment opportunity and in turn integration, it also provides an opportunity to mix and improve language skills. These domains are easy to understand and relative agreed upon, there is greater debate, though, when it comes to citizenship and rights. In part, the reason as to why there is disagreement as to what this means with regard to integration is because concepts of citizenship and rights are themselves varied. “Definitions of integration adopted by a nation inevitably depend on that nation’s sense of identity, its cultural understanding of nation and nationhood”44. A nation’s sense of identity incorporates certain values; and these are values that significantly shape the way that a concept such as integration is approached.

These different elements of integration and their ramifications are not considered in the Casey Review. Rather, the focus remains limited to the idea of shared values. Such a disregard for these other elements of integration is not only surprising but could potentially have a negative impact on the policy outcomes derived from it. Another pitfall that must be avoided when these policies are concerned is the creation of a false consciousness with regard to equality as a result of the appointment of token representative figures. Putting minority individuals in certain positions in order to ‘tick boxes’ and for it to appear that integration is taking place has a negative effect and in reality what such exercises are is an imposition on minorities, as where they can come in is being limited and controlled.

When considering the different elements of integration identified above, we should also take into account that although we need more integration “we also want each community to feel proud of its heritage and traditions – in other words, we need a type of multi-culturalism in which everyone supports the values and laws of the nation, whilst keeping hold of their cultural identity”45. The pace and breadth of international movement has increased, there is now more diversity and broader diversity, the number of places where people in the UK come from is far greater than in the past. These increases will add to difficulties regarding integration, hence the importance of a meaningful sense of integration being pursued as opposed to merely shared values.

43 http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20110218135832/http:/rds.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs04/dpr28.pdf 44 http://www.cpcnetwork.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/19.-Ager-Strang-Understanding-Integration-2008.pdf 45 http://tedcantle.co.uk/pdf/Parallel%20lives%20Ted%20Cantle.pdf

Page 24 Report 2017_Layout 1 26/04/2017 15:10 Page 25

Integration & Minorities Report 2017

In addition to the points made above, another aspect that those working on integration strategies need to consider is that white British people are worried about immigration; as noted in the previous section immigration is largely perceived as a problem. Besides working on how different groups can integrate, integration strategies also need to work on countering the negative sentiments of the white majority. “We need to improve opportunities and interactions within and across individuals and communities in Britain, but central to this is to tackle prejudice, discrimination and racism”46. As an example of why this is necessary we can point to two of the main conclusions from the EHRC Report of 2016, that minorities have increased their rate of mixing with each other but not with the White British and that minorities, when grouped as a whole, are in most cases becoming more isolated from White British people in urban areas47.

The Casey Review’s position on integration elaborates on the importance of shared British values, proclaiming that they are “inhibitors of division, hate and extremism” that they “make us stronger, more equal, more united and able to stand together as one nation”. The idea is that a focus on what people have in common can improve integration by reducing divisions. An area where shared values are considered as particularly important is education, with the aim being to promote these values to young children in order for them to assimilate them and carry them through into adulthood. It is believed that the particular values promoted will mean that children will be more tolerant of difference and “resilient to harmful influences later in life”. The Review also states the importance of ‘Britishness’ to integration; stating that in order for integration to be achieved everyone must have “a real sense of belonging and must share common values...all citizens, whether by birth or naturalised, white or from a black minority ethnic group, whatever their faith, need to be able to see themselves as ‘British’”. It is this that in turn is combined with the idea of shared values to arrive at the importance of shared British values. The review attempts to identify what these British values should be, whilst acknowledging that individually these values are not necessarily uniquely British. The values identified are:

• Democracy • Rule of law • Individual liberty • Equality • Freedom of speech • Mutual respect, tolerance and understanding of different faiths and beliefs.

The promotion of these values is in line with the Government policy on radicalisation and fighting extremism; it is their promotion that is considered as the weapon against extremists, it is these values that are being used as a benchmark against which to measure who is to be considered an extremist. In turn, though, this is also being used as the benchmark against which to measure integration, which we believe is resulting in a number of problems.

The promotion of these values is in line with the Government policy on radicalisation and fighting extremism; it is their promotion that is considered as the weapon against extremists, it is these values that are being used as a benchmark against which to measure who is to be considered an extremist.

46 https://www.runnymedetrust.org%2Fuploads%2FCaseyReviewLetter.pdf&usg=AFQjCNGQ-8fLR4foFijtL7baJbiOiRsvYw&bvm=bv.151426398,d.d24 47 https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/en/race-report-healing-divided-britain

Page 25 Report 2017_Layout 1 26/04/2017 15:10 Page 26

Integration & Minorities Report 2017

In turn, though, this is also being used as the benchmark against which to measure integration, which we believe is resulting in a number of problems.

A particular concern is the strong linking between the values outlined and Britishness. At no point, though, does the Review address the question of what is meant by Britishness, or for that matter what is meant by values. The dictionary definition of values is “principles or standards of behaviour; one's judgement of what is important in life”.48 We must presume, though, that within the context of the Review what are being referred to are cultural or societal values. That is to say, principles or standards of behaviour; what is considered important in life, as generally agreed upon by a given society or culture. For a society values are important, they are as provide guidelines for social conduct and therefore help maintain social order. Values are also used by people within a society to judge their own actions. Within this context and understanding of what values are we do not doubt their importance. Moreover, we accept and note the importance of shared values within any society; it is the fact that the particular values in questioned are shared by members of the community that gives them weight. What we do see as problematic, though, is the way in which recent Government policy has sought to impose values. In addition, the way in which Britishness is being promoted alongside shared values, we believe, is also potentially excluding minority members of the community.

The Casey Review itself acknowledges that besides those who support the idea of promoting British values, there are many who strongly oppose it. One of the main reasons highlighted in the Review for rejecting this idea is the fact that is seen as forcing a choice on individuals, “not allowing for plurality or multiple identities”. Today’s Britain is made up of individuals from incredibly diverse backgrounds, with different religions, languages, cultural histories and, indeed, values. Such a complex society means that by rejecting, rather than embracing, plurality of identity there will be many who feel alienated, who feel that the many things that make them individuals could result in them being discriminated against. Such a feeling of rejection and discrimination is the antithesis of integration; rather than fostering integration it can actually result in many who had believed themselves to be part of the community and society then rejecting it due to them being a minority.

In part, this feeling of alienation is being added to by the particular version of Britishness that has been advocated by the Government. The dictionary definition of Britishness is “The quality of being British or of having characteristics regarded as typically British”49. What is important in this, though, is what is meant by British; who and what is considered British? There are many different levels on which this could be addressed, it could be a purely legal definition, a British person is a person who has British citizenship. However, when put alongside values British is not being used in this way, rather, we believe it is being used as a loaded term which promotes particular ideas.

The first problem with the way in which British values has been promoted comes from the fact that it has been noted by many that what Britishness refers to is extremely difficult to define. Therefore, to presume that there is a single definition which is actually agreed upon in itself disregards the views and sense of identity of many in our society. Another issue arises from one of accepted definitions of Britishness, which is of “shared values of tolerance, respect and fair play, a belief in

48 https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/value 49 https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/us/britishness 50 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-17218635

Page 26 Report 2017_Layout 1 26/04/2017 15:10 Page 27

Integration & Minorities Report 2017

freedom and democracy”50. This definition is in line with that which has been promoted by the Government since David Cameron announced in 2014 that we should not be “bashful” about Britishness but rather should embrace a “muscular” version of British values. Cameron went on to add that the British values he spoke of included freedom, tolerance of others, accepting personal and social responsibility, and respecting and upholding the rule of law.51 This definition is very much in line with the values identified in the Casey Review as British values that should be promoted. Of this definition, though, there are two lines of critiques; one, is that there is nothing necessarily British about these values, in the sense that these hold true of more or less any democratic society. As such, to profess that these are particularly British values seems not only odd but also somewhat disrespectful to all those others who also embrace these values. This leads to the second critique of this definition, that is so vague that it seems to serve little purpose. In addition, when this idea of British values is being used in the context of radicalisation and the fight against this, we must take into consideration the fact that extremists might profess to be British, an adherence to this vague idea tells us little about someone’s intentions, unlike their adherence to the law; which is what we should be focusing on rather than spending endless time debating values.

Considering the weakness of the definition it seems fair to presume that more is being meant than this; that is in fact a loaded term. In part this position is corroborated by the way in which British values have been posited against radicalisation. As opposed to British values we believe that what is actually being referred to here are English values, and for that matter, white English values. In part, this is because of the items on the list which are shared by many societies and cultures, such as the rule of law and democracy; we regard the labelling of these as specifically British as belittling to others outside of our community and as alienating to those within our community who have foreign heritage. In addition, other items on the list, such as a focus on individualism, are not necessarily being coupled with the responsibility that comes with such rights; as a standalone factor individualism can lead to selfishness, it is therefore important to balance it with a sense of responsibility towards others, as in evident amongst those who have a strong association with group, community or family as opposed to merely individualism.

The alienating of minority groups due to the linking of British values with what may be perceived to be actually white and English values is particularly illogical when we look at actual data on who considers themselves British. Research concludes that ethnic minority groups in the UK “are more likely to describe themselves as exclusively British compared with the white British population (38% versus 14%)”52. If white English people do not consider themselves British, then why has so much importance been placed on British values and enforcing these upon minority groups? Moreover, it seems that in general the idea of British values goes against the trend of actual national identity in England, where three-fifths of the population do not identify as British, but rather, as English. 53

51 https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/jun/15/david-cameron-british-values-schools 52 http://raceclassandmulticulturalsim.blogspot.co.uk/2013/06/truth-and-lies-in-migration-and.html 53 http://www.ethnicity.ac.uk/medialibrary/briefingsupdated/who-feels-british.pdf

Page 27 Report 2017_Layout 1 26/04/2017 15:10 Page 28

Integration & Minorities Report 2017

54

Besides these points, it is also important to note that a false focus on a lack of British values also masks something which is an actual problem, the fact that prejudice and discrimination are hindering integration. “There are many dimensions of ethnic inequality that have an adverse effect on integration and community cohesion. Being an ethnic minority person in Britain today means that you have a reduced chance of getting into university, getting a job, owning a home…conversely your chances of being unfairly treated by the police and of serving a longer sentence in prison for committing the same offence as a white person are increased”55.

Generally speaking the vast majority of British people share values of a modern democratic world so much so that they are not necessarily a form of British exclusivity. However some in a patriarchal culture may prefer the notion of British Values as something offering liberty than what they may not at all like under their controlled environment but they still would want to be accepted for the positives of their own wider ‘culture’ as Britons. So with an over emphasis on British Values but talking down multi-culture we can sometimes make matters worse for minority individuals who genuinely claim to be British but are not accepted as such, fully. Rather we need to build a Britain of simply Shared Values within the larger ambit of multi-culture. The ethnic minorities’ cultures can no longer be considered anything other than British.

54 http://www.ethnicity.ac.uk/medialibrary/briefingsupdated/who-feels-british.pdf 55 http://www.runnymedetrust.org/blog/how-the-next-government-can-reduce-racial-inequality

Page 28 Report 2017_Layout 1 26/04/2017 15:10 Page 29

Integration & Minorities Report 2017

There are other problems when those who preach British values but talk down multi culture when they themselves fall well short of practising those values. We believe that there can actually be a lack of integrity displayed by a considerable number of officials holding public office; the advocating and even imposition of values which are not even being upheld by those pretending to enforce them is nothing short of hypocritical. Are our leaders not meant to lead by example in such circumstances?

Those who hold public office are meant to adhere to seven principles of public life, the Nolan Principles. These are:

1. Selflessness: all actions should be in the public interest 2. Integrity: must not be left open to inappropriate influence or benefit financially or in any other material form from their actions. 3. Objectivity: must be impartial. 4. Accountability: to the public. 5. Openness: actions must be transparent 6. Honesty: truthful 7. Leadership: holders of public office should lead by example and exhibit these principles.

As mentioned above, we do not believe that the holders of public office are indeed following these principles. As an example we only need to see recent press reports, for example, Cameron’s resignation honours list and the appointments of cronies and party donors, laughable LOL!

On a more serious note recent reports on Lord Michael Howard, who apparently never forgets war anniversaries, last year could not remember the truth of whether he or his wife was driving his car when caught speeding, demonstrating his intent to evade the law – reminders come of reports of Anne Widdecombe, a committed Christian, suggesting over a decade ago, “something of the night about him”.

Well, politicians holding public office surely need to be trained in the Nolan principles in public life, periodically.

Page 29 Report 2017_Layout 1 26/04/2017 15:10 Page 30

Integration & Minorities Report 2017

Case Study

Institutional Inequalities at the Heart of the Establishment

House of Lords Peers

Page 30 Report 2017_Layout 1 26/04/2017 15:10 Page 31

Integration & Minorities Report 2017

Contents

1. The House of Lords Page 33 a. The issue of numbers b. Prime Ministerial power c. The Appointments Commission

2. International Comparison Page 42

3. Minorities and the House of Lords Page 44 a. BAME representation b. Religious representation

4. Equality Act and the House of Lords Page 48

5. Reforms Page 57 a. Recent attempts at reform of House of Lords b. Proposed reforms for a House of Peers

Glossary

HoC – House of Commons HoL – House of Lords HoP – House of Peers

Page 31 Report 2017_Layout 1 26/04/2017 15:10 Page 32

Integration & Minorities Report 2017

Introduction

Here we set out to look at several points that are considered as either problematic or requiring reform with regard to the House of Lords (HoL), in particular the size of the House of Lords and the extent of Prime Ministerial power there is over the House. Problems relating to the HoL are seen as particularly salient as they add to a public feeling of discontent with the establishment; a sentiment that has been growing of late.

In addition to public discontent, another issue that has been receiving growing attention, and which Government must ensure it concern itself with, is that of inequalities within the UK. A recent report by the Equalities and Human Rights Commission described deep rooted inequalities and increased racial tension as well as widening social divisions56 ; immediate action was recommended to redress this. As a related concern there has also been a significant and continued increase in the number of reported incidents of race related hate crimes since the Brexit vote, culminating in the tragic murder of a Polish man in August 2016.

Between public discontent and issues of inequality there is a crossover point, the point with which we are principally concerned here; namely, the question of inequalities in politics for people from a minority background. More specifically, this report will look at how the House of Lords could be reformed in order to make it a more accountable and democratic chamber whilst also considering the lack of representation in both parliamentary chambers.

In order to assess this question we first look at the role of the House of Lords and the different reforms that have been tabled. Secondly, minority representation in parliament will be assessed.

56 EHRC, Healing a Divided Britain: the need for a comprehensive race equality strategy. Aug 2016. https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/sites/default/files/healing_a_divided_britain_-_the_need_for_a_comprehensive_race_equality_strategy_final.pdf

Page 32 Report 2017_Layout 1 26/04/2017 15:10 Page 33

Integration & Minorities Report 2017

The House of Lords

The British Parliament consists of two chambers, the first chamber is the House of Commons and the second Chamber is the House of Lords. Although the work of both Houses is similar with regard to legislative policy, they have a different set of powers and therefore scope. As the second chamber the HoL provides a number of democratic benefits, including the scrutinizing and amending of draft legislation, thus partially holding the first chamber to account, and carrying out enquiries into specific issues. With regards to the benefits of a second chamber for a democratic system, it is generally accepted that the House of Lords successfully carries out its duties.

An excellent example of the House of Lords working effectively as a second chamber is the fact that between 1999 and 2012 the HoL inflicted over 506 defeats on Government proposals; over the same period of time the House of Commons inflicted a mere 7 defeats57. A second chamber ensures that legislation is looked over a second time, allowing for greater scrutiny and consideration. Although it does not have the power to override bills initiated in the Commons, the HoL is able to delay bills by up to a year, giving a considerable window of time during which issues can be thoroughly reconsidered.58

Besides working effectively, research also suggests the HoL has also become increasingly influential with regard to policy59,thereby increasing its importance. There are a number of reasons why it’s considered that the influence has increased; with a primary reason being increased political balance between the parties, as no party holds an overall majority in the House more negotiation is needed over legislations if it is to receive the cross-party support needed for it to be passed.

Besides the roles mentioned above with regard to legislation and scrutiny, there is another role that is attributed to second chambers that is of considerable relevance from the perspective of this report. Second chambers are considered as providing an opportunity for a different sort of representation than that found in the first chamber, “which may benefit those who are absent from, or disadvantaged by, arrangements in the first chamber. This applies in particular to minority groups”60; although it also applies to ‘functional’ representation, with those selected being chosen due to their experiences and expertise in a particular field as opposed to by political affiliation. Just as it is important to try and improve the workings of the HoL and its ability to fulfil its role of scrutinising legislation, it is also important to consider the relevant reforms that are proposed for improving representation.

Other than the fact that it is accepted that the HoL is beneficial for our democratic system, another fact that is accepted by commentators is that for the HoL to continue performing its duties accordingly it is necessary for it to reform. Talk of reforming the House of Lords is not new; proposals for change have been aired for over a Century. The calls for reform are in part derived from the fact that the HoL is seen as controversial; a regularly talked about controversy is the fact that members are unelected. Although it is important to note that it is argued by some that the fact that the Lords are unelected is actually beneficial, as rather than elected politicians this means that the members of the house can be selected experts from different fields who are politically impartial and therefore serve the functions of a second chamber better. We consider the issue of political 57 Russell, M. The Contemporary House of Lords.OUP. 2013. P. 134 58 It should be noted that over financial legislation the HoL has less power and can only delay legislation by a month. 59 Russell, M. The Contemporary House of Lords.OUP. 2013. P. 7 60 Russell, M. The Contemporary House of Lords.OUP. 2013. P. 44

Page 33 Report 2017_Layout 1 26/04/2017 15:10 Page 34

Integration & Minorities Report 2017

impartiality as incredibly important, and this is therefore something that we will focus on in sections looking at the Prime Minister’s power and potential future reforms.

Besides talk of reform there has also been legislation to try and change the working of the House; the most significant reform to have taken place in recent years was the removal of the vast majority hereditary peers in 1999; a move that transformed the make-up of the HoL.

The Issue of Numbers

A particular area of how the House runs that is considered as needing reform is the appointments system. There are considered to be several issues with how appointments into the House of Lords are made. One area of concern regarding the appointments system relates to the increasing number of members in the House. Many consider the rate of growth as unsustainable. The growth rate has also been considerably steep, between 1999 and 2014 the number of peers increased by nearly a third.

https://constitution-unit.com/2015/02/10/enough-is-enough-time-to-regulate-prime-ministerial-appointments-to-the-lords/

Page 34 Report 2017_Layout 1 26/04/2017 15:10 Page 35

Integration & Minorities Report 2017

The rate of appointments, though, has not been evenly distributed between the Prime Ministers in office during this time:

Number of Life Peers Appointed by Prime Minister between 1997 and 2016

Prime Labour Conservative Lib Dem Crossbench Total Avr. Avr. Minister per year crossbench per year

Tony Blair 162 62 54 96 374 37.4 9.6 (1997-2007)

Gordon Brown 11 4217 34 11.3 5.66 (2007-2010)

David Cameron 56 122 51 31 260 43.33 5.16 (2010 – 2016)

There are several reasons why such a large sized chamber is viewed unfavourably and as unsustainable. An increase in the number of peers means an increase in associated costs and an increased pressure on the resources available to serve the House. In addition, increased numbers mean that it is more difficult for peers to contribute to debate as a result of there being too many members and limited time for discussion.

There was an attempt to deal with the size of the HoL with some regulation brought into force into 2014 which allowed peers to resign, whereas previously membership had been for life. It is generally accepted, though, that more is needed in order to deal with the problems at hand. The rationale behind using this legislation to deal with the issue of numbers is partly based on the idea that the biggest problem is how to get people out of the House of Lords. However, we consider it just as important to deal with the issue of how people get in to the HoL. The issue of numbers should not be used as a way of blocking the entry of new and fresh members to the House who could go a considerable way towards making the reforms that are necessary.

Prime Ministerial Power

Another proposed reform that has received significant attention concerns the Prime Ministerial Privileged over appointments to the House. Current legislation means that, besides a vetting for appropriateness, there is no regulation over Prime Ministerial appointments. The PM can choose who the new peers are, how many peers to appoint, and the political party balance between them, as can be noted in the previous table looking at appointments made between 1997 and 2016 the rate of appointment and political distribution of appointments can vary greatly. This power was granted to

61 The Guardian.Lords Reform the Background. https://www.theguardian.com/politics/1999/jan/21/lordreform.constitution3 62 Russell, M &Senlyen, T. Enough is Enough – Regulating Prime Ministerial Appointments to the Lords. UCL. Feb 2015 https://www.ucl.ac.uk/constitution- unit/publications/tabs/unit-publications/161.pdf

Page 35 Report 2017_Layout 1 26/04/2017 15:10 Page 36

Integration & Minorities Report 2017

the PM with the passing of the 1958 Life Peerage Act61, which aimed to modernise the House and deal with the issue of falling numbers and attendance. Unfortunately, though, this power has now resulted in the opposite problem and the generally accepted point that the HoL is bloated.

The extent of power granted to the PM over these decisions is considered problematic for a number of reasons; in part, it is an issue as it “gives the executive a remarkable degree of control over the composition of parliament”62;thereby leaving room for the PM to manipulate the HoL in favour of government. Such manipulation can make it easier for Government to pass legislation, in the instance of them decreasing opposition; which decreases the extent to which the second chamber duty of scrutinising legislation is effective. Moreover, it has been noted that “the House of Lords is too important for its membership any longer to be left to Prime Ministerial whim”63.

The use of Prime Ministerial power in this way also lessens the extent to which the HoL is politically impartial, as it is up to the Prime Minister to decide how many peers will be appointed per party and for the crossbench. In the instance of a Prime Minister appointing more people form his own party in order to achieve a majority there is a danger of the HoL merely becoming a mirror of the Commons. This would mean that the Lords would cease to be a chamber of experts and that its ability to scrutinise legislation would be hindered. An overall majority for any party would mean that legislation would be passed as a result of party affiliation, rather than after considered scrutinising. The Lords as a mirror of the Commons seems even less necessary when one considers that a Bill initiated in the Commons cannot be stopped by the Lords, merely delayed.

Besides critique from political commentators and analysts, the way in which PMs select those who are to be appointed to the HoL has recently also been the source of numerous media scandals, including questions about the appointment of large party donors and how many former MPs have been given peerages. Besides highlighting the gravity of the issue this is an issue in and of itself. It is not in either the public or government interest for the House to be viewed so negatively, as this diminishes the levels of confidence that there is in our governing institutions. This is particularly so when the perception is that the only way people achieve peerages is by buying them; such a focus on money as opposed to on quality and equality would be a complete disregard for democracy.

The Appointments Commission

The House of Lords Appointments Commission is often referenced in debates about House of Lords reform; both because it represents some of the reforms that have already taken place and because it is seen as a potential source of future reform.

The Commission was set up in the year 2000 as an independent, advisory, non-departmental public body sponsored by the Cabinet Office to perform two prescribed functions:

• to recommend individuals for appointment as non-party-political life peers • to vet nominations for life peers, including those nominated by the UK political parties, to ensure the highest standards of propriety. 64

64 Although it should be noted that the Appointment Commission does not have the power to veto PM appointments, merely delay them.

Page 36 Report 2017_Layout 1 26/04/2017 15:10 Page 37

Integration & Minorities Report 2017

The Commission is made up of six members and a Chair, who serves a five year non-renewable term. Three of the members are independent and the other three represent each of the main political parties (The Conservatives, Labour and the Liberal Democrats). The independent members are appointed through open competition in accordance with guidelines set by the Commissioner for Public Appointments. The political members are nominated by their respective parties. The Chair, who is also an independent, is appointed by the Prime Minister following pre-appointment scrutiny by the Political and Constitutional Reform Select Committee.

The Commission is currently made up of the following members:

Chair: Professor the Lord Kakkar is a surgeon who joined the House of Lords as a crossbencher in 2010. He took over as Chair of the Commission in October 2013.

Independent members: The current independent members were appointed in December 2013 for fixed five year terms.

Lord (Colin) Low of Dalston, CBE had worked extensively on disability and is the Vice President of the RNIB and President of ICEVI (International Council for Education of People with Visual Impairment). He was appointed to the House of Lords as a crossbencher in 2006.

Sir Malcolm Ross, GCVO, OBE served in the Army for 25 years before joining the Queen’s Household for 20 years as Comptroller of The Lord Chamberlain's Office and Master of the Household of The Prince of Wales and The Duchess of Cornwall.

In 2008 he became Lord-Lieutenant of The Stewartry of Kirkcudbrightshire, Prior of Scotland (Chairman of the Order of St John), and Chairman of the Westminster Group plc.

Professor Gillian Peele: Is an Oxford academic who works on British and American politics.

Political Members: the current members were re-appointed in December 2013 for a further three-year term.

Lord (Garry) Hart of Chilton (Labour) Joined the House of Lords in 2004 after a successful political career.

The Rt. Hon. Lord (Michael) Howard of Lympne QC (Conservative): The former leader of the Conservative party served as an MP for nearly three decades and joined the House of Lords in 2010.

Baroness (Rosalind) Scott of Needham Market (Liberal Democrat) Joined the House of Lords in 2000 after a long career in local government.

Page 37 Report 2017_Layout 1 26/04/2017 15:10 Page 38

Integration & Minorities Report 2017

Since it was created in 2000 the Commission has recommended 69 peers who have then gone on to be appointed as crossbench life peers.

The Commission as representing reform: The establishing of the Appointments Commission was part of reforms that took place in 1999, there have been the most significant and extensive reform of the Lords in modern times. The Commission’s independence was seen as adding accountability and transparency to the Lords; in line with the removal of most hereditary peers it was also seen as more democratic than the system which had been in place up until then. In addition, the Commission meant that some of the Prime Minister’s power with regard to the appointment of peers was removed, as for non-partisan peers the commission would now put forward recommendations. Although, of course, it is very important to note that the PM continues to appoint crossbenchers, typically of distinguished public servants on retirement from office. The number of crossbenchers nominated by PMs since Tony Blair has been around ten a year. 65

The Commission and actual reform: Although when the Commission was set up there was great expectation, this has since turned to pessimism for a number of reasons. It is true that the Commission is now responsible for putting forward crossbench peers, however, as the Prime Minister still has the power to decide how many new appointments are made and what the balance of these appointments will be as far as party affiliation and independent status is concerned66,thus there remains significant room for the Prime Minister to manipulate the work of the commission.

The extent to which the Prime Minister may influence the Commission is evident when looking at the number of crossbenchers that have been appointed since 2000. Although the Commission has appointed 69 peers, the distribution of these appointments has not been even throughout the years. Some years have seen considerably more appointments than others, whilst there are years where no appointments are made. The breakdown of appointments per year is as follows67:

Commission Appointments of crossbenchers by Prime Minister

PM Tony Blair Gordon Brown David Cameron

Year 2001 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2015 2016

15 777852622242

It is clear from these figures that during the years 2010-2015, when the coalition Government was in power and in 2016 under David Cameron’s Conservative Government, that the number of Commission appointments significantly declined. This is particularly relevant if we consider that during this same period the overall number of appointments actually increased. 68

65 House of Commons Library.Peerage Creation since 1997.http://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/LLN-2016-0007/LLN-2016-0007.pdf 66 Russell, M. The Truth About House of Lords Appointments. UCL. July 2015.https://constitution-unit.com/2015/07/29/the-truth-about-house-of-lords-appointments/ 67 It Is important to note that these figures are different from those in the previous table as these are the appointments that have come from the Appointments Commission, rather than the PM crossbench recommendations. 68 Russell, M. The Truth About House of Lords Appointments. UCL. July 2015.https://constitution-unit.com/2015/07/29/the-truth-about-house-of-lords-appointments/

Page 38 Report 2017_Layout 1 26/04/2017 15:10 Page 39

Integration & Minorities Report 2017

If we look at the affiliation of appointments for the different Prime Ministers that have held office since the Commission was established the percentages are as follows:

http://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/LLN-2016-0007/LLN-2016-0007.pdf

It is clear from these figures that the percentage of crossbenchers appointed by the different Prime Ministers has varied greatly; which in itself brings into question the Commission’s ability to perform its functions when so much power continues to rest with the Prime Minister.

The extent of Prime Ministerial power was brought to the attention of the public with David Cameron’s resignation honours list; which included 13 new Conservative peers, a new Labour peer and two new crossbenchers. Yet in 2016 there have been no appointments from the Commission. Moreover, when looking at the crossbenchers, one was the former permanent secretary at the Treasury and other the former national security adviser and ambassador to France, these seem to be individuals who are associated with the Government; thereby leaving no room for what may be regarded as truly independent appointments.

Commission members: Regarding the members of the Commission, it should be noted that excluding the Chair, half of the Commission is made up of party representatives. The extent to

Page 39 Report 2017_Layout 1 26/04/2017 15:10 Page 40

Integration & Minorities Report 2017

which there can be impartiality with only 50% impartial members is something that should be debated. Moreover, the party representatives are prescribed as being Labour, Conservative and Liberal Democrat. In the 2015 general election, though, the Scottish national Party gained considerably more seats that the Liberal Democrats, highlighting a potential issue with the current make-up of the Commission and perhaps suggesting that there should be greater impartiality in the members. This seems to be specially the case when we consider that the Commission is a Non- Departmental Public Body -NDPB, a “body which has a role in the processes of national government, but is not a government department or part of one, and which accordingly operates to a greater or lesser extent at arm’s length from ministers”69. Moreover, the Government review of NDPBs in 2010 classified the Appointments Commission as a NDPD on the basis that it performs a function that requires impartiality.

Moreover, we would like to note that in the current members of the Commission there seems to be some disparity with regard to political experience and representation. From the brief statements about the members above, one can easily identify Michael Howard as by far the most experienced politician on the panel. The disparity between his political experience and that of any of the other members is something that could give him greater influence than the rest of the board, which, in turn, would mean that there is a political slant to the Commission. As a former party leader Michael Howard’s experience of politics far exceeds that of the other panel members; thus we believe that someone with such weight of experience in politics should be on the panel unless all other panel members have comparable experience, as this risks hindering the impartiality of the Commission. Moreover, as a former party leader it is not difficult to imagine that his allegiances lie more with the party than with the idea of an independent Commission.

The Commission and minorities: With regard to the appointment of minorities and faith representatives besides the Church of England bishops, many hoped that the Commission would mean fairer representation, that the impartiality of the Commission would advance the representation of minorities. In reality, though, since 2010 only two BAME individuals have been appointed as crossbenchers. Moreover, since the current members of the Commission have been in place no BAME individuals have been appointed as crossbenchers. However, from the first 59 appointments made by the Commission 22% were BAME individuals70, thus the belief that the Commission provided fairer representation and an opportunity to redress inequalities when compared to Prime Ministerial appointments. The first 59 appointments were made by 2012, suggesting that the issue has only arisen since then; this contributes to our belief that the current Commission has increased inequalities. Moreover, like the House of Lords as a whole, the Commission does not seem keep records of the ethnicity of those that become crossbenchers, making it very difficult to monitor the workings of the Commission with regard to this.

With regard to faith representatives, although again there is no data on the religious affiliation of appointments, the Commission has famously appointed Jonathan Sacks, the former Chief Rabbi, and Indarjit Singh, a representative of the Sikh faith. Although this should be seen as a positive step, in reality there remain a plethora of religions that have no representation.

69 Cabinet Office.Public Bodies Transformation Programme. April 2016. https://www.gov.uk/guidance/public-bodies-reform 70 Russell, M. The Contemporary House of Lords.OUP. 2013. P. 102

Page 40 Report 2017_Layout 1 26/04/2017 15:10 Page 41

Integration & Minorities Report 2017

As a declaration of past interest Anil Bhanot, a representative of the Hindu faith community and interfaith relations and more widely for the ethnic minorities, specifically citing his wish to give input into the Caste legislation debate – please see appended case study – and also to assist in reforming the HoL – also see Reform Proposals below, with written citations from several distinguished Lords & acclaimed Crossbench Baroness, Veteran Lord Bishops, Faith and Community Leaders, Civil Servants and others of the most high ethics and accomplishments but to no avail. For his sins Anil says he applied not once but twice, first in 2013 and then misguidedly thinking he was invited to re- apply in 2016, to this Appointments Commission but the second rejection was so callous it left him with nightmares, not least because he felt undeserving of the most excellent citations his highly admired colleagues had gone the extra mile to make. Learning about the Prime Minister’s absolute powers Anil also had written to David Cameron about the need for the Equality Act’s Faith strand to be filled by a ‘non-aligned’ person only which he, being a faith leader, truly is, and although David Cameron ignored Anil’s plea letter he did then seemingly close that ‘non-aligned’ gap with his personal appointment for community representation, through his resignation list last year.

The Commission and future reforms: Despite the fact that the Commission may have fallen short of the expectations of reformers, it is still seem by many as the source of future change. Many commentators consider that an increased role for the Commission in the future could bring about greater accountability, political balance and impartiality. As the Commission is a body that already exists, and which theoretically signifies a fairer way of reaching the Lords than Prime Ministerial appointments, it is considered that increased scope for the Commission would benefit the HoL71. We believe, though, that if the Commission is to be granted further powers, then some of the issues mentioned above about its impartiality and susceptibility to Prime Ministerial manipulation need to be addressed first. In particular we believe that it would be beneficial for the Commission to have twice as many members as it currently does. As opposed to six members 12 members would mean a broader range of people can be represented on the panel, including more political parties, including devolved assemblies, than the three currently there.

We would like to note that the people who are appointed by the Commission are of a very high calibre and for this the Commission should be commended. The issue lies with the limitations that are in place with regard to the number of people the Commission can appoint, which is set by the Prime Minister. In addition, we believe that the invitation to apply by the Chairman should state how many places there are available in the House, as this would mean that applicants have a full understanding of the process and can thereby manage their expectation.

71 Russell, M. The Truth About House of Lords Appointments. UCL. July 2015.https://constitution-unit.com/2015/07/29/the-truth-about-house-of-lords-appointments/

Page 41 Report 2017_Layout 1 26/04/2017 15:10 Page 42

Integration & Minorities Report 2017

International Comparison

In order to gain a better understanding of both the role of the House of Lords and the extent to which this role is performed successfully, we will now look at the systems that are in place in other countries, thereby allowing us to better judge our own Parliament.

As mentioned above, Parliaments consists of either one or two chambers (unicameral and bicameral). It is estimated that 60% countries that are considered as free and democratic have a unicameral system; although it should be noted that larger and more populous countries comparable to the UK tend to have a bicameral system, 90% of democracies with a population of over 50 million have a bicameral system, whilst the largest population of a unicameral democracy is that of Sweden which is under 10 million.72

There are several features of the House of Lords that have been compared with other second chambers. One feature that is often looked at is size. The House of Lords is not only the largest second chamber in the world; it is also one of the very few second chambers that is larger than its associated first chamber, the other countries where this is the case are Kazakhstan and Burkina Faso. When looking at the size of the second chamber of other nations the average size of the second chamber is 60% that of the first, Germany and the United States have second chambers that are less than half the size of the first73 .

The HoL currently has around 760 active members.

72 Political Studies Association.House of Lords reform. 2015 https://www.psa.ac.uk/sites/default/files/HL%20Reform%20briefing%20paper.pdf 73 Constitution Unit.SecondChambers.UCL. https://www.ucl.ac.uk/spp/publications/unit-publications/40.pdf

Page 42 Report 2017_Layout 1 26/04/2017 15:10 Page 43

Integration & Minorities Report 2017

Another feature often assessed is the length term for which members serve. Although in most second chambers members serve longer terms than in the first chamber the fact that in the House of Lords is for life is considered an extreme example; although it’s not unique, the Italian Senate also has life-time membership, the majority of other countries, though, set limits on the amount of time members can serve. The most common term lengths vary between four and six years74 .

The method used to select members is another point that can be compared, although this is something that varies greatly in countries with a second chamber, ranging from wholly elected chambers, to fully appointed, as well as an array of hybrid systems. For example, the USA and Switzerland have wholly elected second chambers, in Spain the majority are directly elected and a minority indirectly elected. Directly elected refers to a vote by the people, such as that used for selecting members of the commons in the UK, whilst indirect elections are ones where the electorate plays a part although be it not a direct one, “in France and Ireland a mixture of councillors and MPs make up an electoral college for the upper house. In Austria and India state parliaments elect its members”. Although the UK is not alone in having an appointed second chamber, “appointed second chambers in democracies are limited to former British colonies”75. Moreover, the UK does have two unique modes of entry into the second chamber, hereditary and through ecclesiastical office. Method of selecting second chamber Countries Wholly directly elected Switzerland, USA, Australia Wholly indirectly elected Austria, France, Germany Majority directly, minority indirectly elected Spain Majority directly elected, minority appointed Italy Wholly appointed Jamaica, Oman, Canada Minority hereditary, majority appointed UK

With regard to the powers the second chamber there is again significant variation between countries, although in the majority of countries, like in the UK, the USA, Germany and the Netherlands, the second chamber does not have the power to override the first chamber. That is to say, the first chamber has more power than the second76.

From looking at a broader picture of what form second chambers take we can conclude that there are some elements of the House of Lords that are in line with the majority of not only other countries but countries of a similar size and economic and social outlook. In particular, the power that the House of Lords has is in line with the international standard. In the other points where comparisons were made, though, there do seem to be some disparities; moreover, these areas also seem to correlate with the areas where there have been calls for reform of the House of Lords. The area over which there is the biggest disparity is the size of the House of Lords; this is followed by the length of term in office of members. The way in which members are appointed to the House of Lords is also not in line with other countries, but this is an area over which there is greater variation. BAME Representation

76 House of Lords.Second Chambers. March 2014. http://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/LLN-2014-010/LLN-2014-010.pdf

Page 43 Report 2017_Layout 1 26/04/2017 15:10 Page 44

Integration & Minorities Report 2017

Minorities and the House of Lords

BAME Representation

It is generally reported that there is a huge disparity between the white population and BAME77 population as far as appointments to the “highest echelons of this society”78;this includes the number of BAME individuals who are political representatives. The latest data shows that currently 13% of the UK population is from an ethnic minority background. In comparison, 6% of MPs are from an ethnic minority background and an estimated 6.4% of House of Lords peers are thought to be from an ethnic minority background. Many look at these figures positively, pointing out that in 2001, for example, it is estimated that the figure was 2.6%79. The current figure of 6.4% is therefore seen as signifying a considerable improvement in minority representation.

Although this clearly does demonstrate an improvement, it can be dangerous to merely focus on the positive elements of such data, as this can perpetuate inequalities and deflect from a problem that should be tackled. An exemplar of this is the fact that throughout the 20th and 21st Century, both houses of the UK parliament included immigrants or descendants of immigrants amongst their members, a fact that can be viewed very positively. However, the picture is not that straight forward, as “until the 1970s all of these parliamentarians were white”80.

In order to get a better understanding of minority representation in the HoL the table below looks lists the minority individuals who have been appointed since 2010

Name Year appointed Party Ethnic group Ajay Kumar Kakkar 2010 Crossbench Asian or Asian British: Indian Floella Benjamin 2010 Liberal Democrat Black or Black British Meral Hussein Ece 2010 Conservative Other ethnic group Dolar Popat 2010 Conservative Asian or Asian British: Indian Paul Yaw Boateng 2010 Labour Black or Black British Indarjit Singh 2011 Crossbench Asian or Asian British: Indian Oona King 2011 Labour Mixed or Multiple Nathanael Wei 2012 Conservative Asian/Asian British:Chinese Doreen Lawrence 2013 Labour Black or Black British Rumi Verjee 2013 Liberal Democrat Asian or Asian British: Indian Shaista Ahmad Sheehan 2015 Liberal Democrat Asian or Asian British Ruby McGregor-Smith 2015 Conservative Asian or Asian British: Indian Sharmi Chakrabarti 2016 Labour Asian or Asian British: Indian Jitesh Gadhia 2016 Non-Aligned Asian or Asian British: Indian

Page 44 ssuHlarMe e2ecEni 010 evitavresnCo uorgcinhterehOt pu otralD apPo t2010 evitavresnCo naiAsronaiAs rh:nsitiB aidIn BowYaluPa o2gnetaB 010 Labour lorBrkcaB kcaBl hsitiBr n SiadI gnit g2h 011 hcnebssoCr naiAsronaiAs rn:hsitiB aidIn gniKanOo 2011 Labour iedexM plitulMor e WleanahtNa W2ie 012 evitavresnCo naiAs/naiAs re:hsitiB seniCh wraLneerDo r2ecnew 013 Labour lorBrkcaB kcaBl hsitiBr u eeeVimR e2013 rnrocemDalberLi at aiAsronaiAs rn:hsitiB aidIn m2mAhatsiaSh da 015 irbL ocemDaler rBat naiAsronaiAs rhsitiBr naheeSh rGcMybRu e-rog m2015tiS h evitavresnCo naiAsronaiAs rn:hsitiB aidIn haimraS Cha2itrabark 016 Labour naiAsronaiAs Report 2017_Layout 1 26/04/2017 15:10 Page 45 rn:hsitiB aidIn ihshetJ dGa h2ai 016 o-nN engiAl d naiAsronaiAs Integration & Minorities Reportrn 2017:hsitiB aidIn

If we lookoolewfI k at thisihttak data more closely,seoclreomatads we can see that thatahttahtesencaew,ylse there are some disparities.aspidemsoreareehtta s.eitria ForoF example,maxer the distribution betweenwtebnoitubristideht,elp partieseirtapneew is by no monybs meansnae even::neves

If we look at this data more closely, we can see that that there are some disparities. For example, the distribution!"#$%"&'()*+),+-./0+122%#+311)"*$24+#"*52+ between parties *)('&"%$#"! is ++by no means even: + +2$*")113#%221./0-,)* +25*"#42 + Distribution of BAME peers appointed since 2010 by party affliation 66787+&9+13%6787+&9+13%$9+3:;"3()*+787+&9+13%$9+3:;"3()*++< $)%''3(&9:-%''3($) &9:-%''3( 7;0- $%&'()*+,*(-- ./0-

1+3%8)-- 6"0-

123#4(5-123#4(5- 670-

From the graph above it would seem that whilst political parties have made some efforts to improve From theehtmroF graph theabove issue of minorityit would representationdluowtievobahprag seem that asthat far as crossbencherswhilst political are concernedcaitilopstlihwtahtmese ae partiesthere remainseirtaplc havea madedamevahs someemso significant problem. A lack of crossbenchers from minority communities means that non-partisan minority groups are being overlooked. Although the moves by political parties to redress under- effortsrtoe toots improverepresentation the issue are of courseof minoritymfoessuiehtevropmi welcome, we wouldrepresentation like to emphasise the importancetnoitatnserepreytrionim that ataht as of improvedfarafs asar crossbenchersnessbcros echn rs minority representation on the crossbench. The lack of affiliation of crossbenchers means that not are concernedorea cenc thereonly do theyremains help ensureniamrereehtdernce theas a independencesignificant of the HoL,problem. they also bring.melbroptncaifingsi A with lackal them noof political crossbenchersechnessbcrofock rs frommrofrs agenda. Moreover, the June referendum on the UK’s membership of the European Union minority communitiescoytrionim demonstratedeitinummco means thatnaems traditional thatt-tahts party non-partisan linesnon are now somewhat minority blurred, ytrionimnsairtap in partgoggroups this couldpuro arebe attributed being overlooked.evogniebreas rl .dkeoo to dissatisfaction with the political establishment but also it may be a result of a greater focus on individual issues rather than party line. Considering such developments it is imperative that the HoL AlthoughhguohtAl the movesremainevomeht byimpartial political and not become plcaitilopybs parties a mirroreirtap to of theredress Commons.redreots under-representationr-rednuss are offoreanoitatnserepre cocourserseuco welcome,,emcolew we wouldThe issue oflike representation to eotkeildluowew emphasiseis central when considering the minority importance membersrtopmiehtsesiahpme of parliament. of improved mdevropmifocena minorityytrioni Descriptive representation, whereby it is considered that you can only be represented by someone representationtnserepre onsharing the your crossbench. characteristics81,chnessbcroehtnonoita ish not viewedThe favourably, lackalehT.c alehTc bothof fromaffiliation a practicalitailiafock and of a theoreticalcrossbenchersechnessbcrofono mrs meansnaem s perspective. Practically speaking, the cost of implementing this would be immense; there is also a danger of recruiting lower quality members merely for the sake of representation. It’s also thought thathat nott not oonly do theythat in reality help such ensure divisionsresuneplehyehtodyln can theactually independence reinforce conflict between ofgroupsfocenednepedniehtre the and meanHoL, that theydebate also bringnribsolayeht,LoHeht withhtiwg them no ponmeht political agenda. Moreover,oreoM.adnegalcaitilop the June referendumudnreefreenJuehtr,evo on the UK’sK’Uehtnomu membershipebmems pirshe

Page 45 !"#!"# # Report 2017_Layout 1 26/04/2017 15:10 Page 46

Integration & Minorities Report 2017

descends to ‘essentialism’82-83. Despite this and other difficulties associated with quota systems and direct representation, as well as the negative impacts which these can result it, we must not move away from the need for there to be fair representation. As far as fair representation is concerned it is also important to ensure that politically motivated representation of particular interest groups does not take place. Moreover, that other groups are not hindered by either the forwarding of lower quality candidates or lobbying by particular groups who may have more resources. It is for these reasons that those elements that are in place, such as the Appointment Commission, must remain neutral.

When considering reforms, it is essential that these points regarding representation be taken into account. Despite the potential negatives of descriptive representation, it must also be ensured that the reason why people from a particular background are not entering the House is not as a result of underlying inequalities that restrict their progress. If such inequalities were to be found, then some move towards descriptive representation should be considered. This is particularly pressing when we consider the Equalities and Human Rights Commission recently reported significant and entrenched inequalities; in line with this we should presume that to some degree the lack of minority representation in the House is a result of such inequalities. This presumption is supported by a recent study which found that BAME candidates in parliamentary elections face a disadvantage equalling to around 4% points when compared to white candidates if they stand in areas with large numbers of white voters. The study also reports that this disadvantage is driven primarily by discrimination.

Besides the issues related to minority individuals being able to reach public office and any hindrances and inequalities that they may encounter, there is another related issue which is of considerable importance for BAME individuals. Evidence suggests that BAME MPs express matters of race and ethnicity in PMQs to a greater degree when compared to their white counterparts – so their role may be crucial not only in as far as representation is concerned but also as far as raising these specific issues – perhaps white majority MPs as they have not experienced these concerns do not raise them to the same extent, irrespective of what their views may be on the issues. The different facets to the issue of representation become apparent when considering this point, as the concerns of minority communities seem to be mostly raised by those from minority communities; although of course there are exceptions when it comes to this, with some white MPs deserving considerable praise for the work they do on behalf of minorities.

Religious representation

Under current rules, there is a guarantee of 26 seats for Church of England Bishops within the House of Lords. This is a point that has been widely debated, in part, because there is a clear favouring for the Church of England under this set up when compared to all other religions to be found within the UK. It has been highlighted by commentators and reflected in public opinion that for just one faith to be represented is unfair86. As parliament is meant to represent the people, it seems difficult to justify that only one denomination of one religion should be guaranteed a seat

86 House of Lords.House of Lords: Religious Representation. Nov 2011 http://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/LLN-2011-036/LLN-2011-036.pdf

Page 46 Report 2017_Layout 1 26/04/2017 15:10 Page 47

Integration & Minorities Report 2017

there. The importance of this issue is considered as having exacerbated due to the fact that data shows that although there has been a decline in the number of people who classify themselves as Christian, there has actually been an increase in the number of people who classify themselves as other faiths. If we compare the figures from the 2011 census and the 2001 census this trend is clear.

In 2000 there was a report by the Royal Commission on the Reform of the House of Lords. One of the elements that the Commission looked at was religious representation in the House. They acknowledged that religious belief is an important part of many people’s lives; as such “it is desirable that there should be a voice or voices in the second chamber to reflect that aspect of people’s personalities and with which they can identify”87 . The Commission recommended that the Bishops places be maintained but that places also be given to other Christian denominations and other faith communities. Although they also accepted that there were some issues that had to be considered if other faith representatives were to be selected. For example, not all faiths have hierarchical structures, so there is no necessarily obvious choice as to who would be selected. In order to circumvent this, the report suggests that the appointment commission select individuals who can be considered as representative of different communities.

It has been noted that religious belief is an important part of the identity of many minority ethnic or cultural groups. Moreover, the BAME individuals are more likely to identify with a religion than the white population88. The issue of religious representation is therefore also intrinsically tied to the issue of representation for ethnic minorities, which increases the significance of the matter.

We believe that religion is not just about a belief in God, it is much more than that: it’s a belonging,

88 Parliament.Lords debate on ethnic minorities and faith-based contributions to public life.July 2015. http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld201516/ldhansrd/text/150706-0002.htm#15070627000065

Page 47 Report 2017_Layout 1 26/04/2017 15:10 Page 48

Integration & Minorities Report 2017

an identity, a way of living, a set of values and so on. It cannot be comprehended by a mere number of those going to Church or Synagogue or Mosque or Temple, those figures completely distort what religion is inherently about.

Britain’s history is intrinsically woven by its Christian faith and new world faiths have found a welcoming place to share in the country’s affairs. We believe that the Church, by virtue of it being established, modernises through its partnering with the more secular parliament and thus the British Anglican Church remains an advanced institution dealing with liberal issues in a way that it otherwise would not have been able to. Hence in the case of the Church the Establishment actually exerts a positive influence on the synod to continue towards a progressive policy as it partners with the parliament. Indeed the Established Anglican Church has tried to understand other religions in ways secular parliamentarians would not have had the skills for. We believe that the place of the 26 bishops should be maintained, though perhaps up to half a dozen should be shared with other Christian denominations, and that in the name of equality and fair representation other faiths should also be assured seats in the HoL. Faith is important to people and faith leaders are in a position to represent those from their communities. As was the case with the concerns of BAME individuals, it can be presumed that faith related concerns are not brought up in parliament by non-faith individuals to the same extent as they would be by faith led individuals. Faith representation would also go some way towards furthering integration and promoting better community relation.

There have been suggestions that as opposed to a faith representative an academic could contribute better to revising the legislation but whilst an academic may articulate theories it is the practical interactive knowledge affecting modern day communities that makes workable policy; what’s more is that faith or community leaders should understand the theory behind the practical issue involved and thus grasp the emotive feelings that faith can invoke in people, and thereby understand more the needs of the community. What is required is ‘experiential knowledge’ to ensure representatives can give a pragmatic contribution.

The current Appointments Commission has apparently paid little regard to the Equality Act 2010 for representing its strand on the faith inequality, nor it has appointed any ethnic minorities to the Crossbench.

Equalities Act and the House of Lords

The issue of minority representation is one that challenges equality. In theory, though, questions of equality are dealt with by the Equalities Act. It would seem, though, that there are points within the Equalities Act that are not been stringently adhered to.

There are several characteristics that are set out as protected under the Equalities Act:

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/contents

Page 48 Report 2017_Layout 1 26/04/2017 15:10 Page 49

Integration & Minorities Report 2017

Race is defined as;

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/contents

And religion is defined as:

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/contents In accordance with the Act there is a duty of non-discrimination when these characteristics are concerned; and a series of measures to ensure that non-discrimination is adhered to are set out.

As part of the Act, and one of these measures, is the Public Sector Equality Duty.

Page 49 Report 2017_Layout 1 26/04/2017 15:10 Page 50

Integration & Minorities Report 2017

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/contents

As part of this Duty public authorities must also consider how their function affects different groups differently and they must also monitor all of the protected characteristics of their staff. “Because the general duty requires you to analyse the effects of your organisation’s function on all protected groups public authorities will not be able to meet the duty unless they have enough usable information”89 .

However, a freedom of information request in 201290 showed that the House of Lords is not monitoring this information with regard to ethnicity and religion. “The House of Lords does not require its Members to provide information with regard to ethnicity. The government has also confirmed it does not record such information. As a consequence of this, there are no comprehensive figures that provide either the number of Members from minority ethnic backgrounds or who have a particular religious affiliation”91.

In addition to this, the House of Lords Appointment Commission is also seemingly not keeping such information, thereby not allowing for the levels of representation to be properly assessed or for the possibility of inequalities to be tackled. As a non-departmental public body they fall within the scope of those that should adhere to the duty, as they include:

89 Equalities Act. http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/contents 90 House of Commons Library.Ethnic Minorities in Political and Public Life.June 2016.http://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Summary/SN01156 91 House of Lords.Membership of the House of Lords: Ethnicity, Religion and Diversity. June 2014. http://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/LLN-2014-017/LLN-2014-017.pdf

Page 50 Report 2017_Layout 1 26/04/2017 15:10 Page 51

Integration & Minorities Report 2017

• Government departments and ministers • The armed forces • The NHS • Local authorities • The police • Educational bodies like schools and universities • The information commissioner

Moreover, other organisations not listed in the Act must also comply with the public sector equality duty if they carry out public functions. This can be a public sector organisation. It can also be a private organisation or charity92.

This is despite the fact that in the application form from the Commission people are asked to disclose their ethnicity and religion, as well as sexual orientation and disability. The reason stated as to why this information is requested is to “meet our obligations under section 149 of Equality Act 2012”93, which specifically is the public sector equality duty. The reason we are unable to find any information relating to this monitoring could be because the Appointments Commission destroys former applicant data, citing data protection as their reason for doing this. Although it is true that as personal information is being collected through the application form that people have to fill in if they want to be considered for a peerage, the information does not have to be destroyed if it is being handled correctly and in line with the Data Protection Act protocols. In addition, the fact that applications are only kept for a period of around three months from receipt means that the window of consideration is very narrow; especially if one considers that the number of appointments is pre- determined by the Prime Minister, rather than a reflection of the candidates who are received and their merit. Considering there is such a limited opportunity for people to be selected, perhaps applications should be kept for consideration the following year; especially if we take into consideration that people who apply are likely to be discouraged from re-applying due to the rejection. If indeed there is such disregard for the Equalities Act taking place, then it would seem that inequalities are being practiced at the heart of the establishment. This is particularly so when one considers that the responsibility does not lie with the Commission alone, as the Prime Ministerial power over appointments is also associated.

It is difficult to understand why the House would not be adhering to this duty and monitoring the number of people amongst their staff who belong to a protected characteristic, in order to be able to assess whether they are following the principle of non-discrimination and maximizing the opportunities of those belonging to a protected characteristic. As stated by the Duty, it is only through monitoring that an organisation can gather enough information to assess whether inequalities are in place. Moreover, this issue does not appear to be only with regard to race and faith, a recent House of Lords Committee found that the private sector has been better at implementing the equalities act with regard to disabled people than either central or local government94.

92 Citizens Advice.Public Sector Equality Duty.https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/discrimination/public-sector-equality-duty/who-must-comply-with-the-public-sector-equality-duty/ 93 House of Lords Appointment Commission.Nomination for non-party political membership of the house of lords. http://lordsappointments.independent.gov.uk/how-to-apply.aspx4 94 Select Committee on Equality Act 2010 and Disability.Reporting Session 2015-2016.http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld201516/ldselect/ldeqact/117/117.pdf

Page 51 Report 2017_Layout 1 26/04/2017 15:10 Page 52

Integration & Minorities Report 2017

Our governing institutions should lead by example; they should bestow confidence on the public and show how society can be fairer. However, in this case it would seem that quite the opposite is the case. Not only is there an underrepresentation of both ethnic and religious minorities within the House of Government, but it would seem that information that could help redress this situation is not being gathered by the Government, which seems somewhat ironic considering that the government has implemented legislation that requires other organisations to do just this. When the institutions that set out the rules are not themselves having to follow the rules it is difficult to see how they could ensure that inequalities are not taking place elsewhere.

Reforms

In this concluding section we will look at what reforms have to be taken into account if the issue of minority, ethnic and religious, representation being lower than desirable is to be addressed. Before this, though, we will look at other reforms that have been attempted in order to identify some of the main concerns that have been brought up regarding the House of Lords.

Recent attempts at reform

Following on from the 1999 changes and the changes made regarding hereditary peers, there have been several attempts at further reform. In part, the 1999 changes were seen as the first of a two stage process, with further reforms due to take place; this second stage has yet to materialise. The various attempts at reform and the proposals that have been put forward have had varying degrees of both support and success.

In order to contextualise and further scrutinise the reforms that are advocated in the concluding section of this report, the major reform proposals put forward since 1999 will be assessed below. We hope thereby to avoid some of the pitfalls that previous proposals have fallen.

Wakeham report 2000: Following on from the 1999 House of Lords Act, which reduced the number of hereditary peers by over 600, in that same year a Royal Commission was appointed to examine further reforms to the House. The Commission published its report, the Wakeham Report in 200095. The report included 132 recommendations for the House, with the principal ones being:

• The number of members in the House should be kept to around 500 • Some members of the House should be elected – although a largely directly elected second chamber was specifically not recommended • The House should be broadly representative of society • It should work with the Commons to provide effective checks on Government • Although the Commons should continue to have more power, the Lords should have enough power to ensure that Government reconsiders proposed legislation • A significant number of members should not be politicians but rather bring a set of expertise to the House • A peerage should not be a prerequisite for membership

95 Cabinet Office.A House for the Future: Royal Commission on the reform of the House of Lords. Jan 2000. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/a-house-for-the-future-royal-commission-on-the-reform-of-the-house-of-lords

Page 52 Report 2017_Layout 1 26/04/2017 15:10 Page 53

Integration & Minorities Report 2017

People’s Peers: The Government received the report positively and stated that it would act on some of the recommendations, which it did in fact do. In 2000 the independent House of Lords Appointment Commission was established and in 2001 the “People’s Peers” were created, 15 non- party-political members. Through these two elements it was believed that the House would be more representative of society and provide non-party-political expertise. A limit on the number of members and the introduction of some elected members are change that have to this day not been implement, in part due to a lack of political support within the Commons.

Joint Committee Report: Following on from these two developments in 2002 a joint committee was appointed to consider reforms; publishing its first report at the end of that year96. The report sought to find ways of maintaining the effectiveness whilst increasing the legitimacy of the House. It thereby stated that the conventions governing the HoL relations with the Commons should continue as they were and that no addition powers should be granted to the HoL. It went on to state that it considered five qualities as desirable for a reformed lords: legitimacy, representativeness, party-political balance, independence and expertise. With regard to this it concluded that: “The existing House of Lords meets several of these criteria, namely lack of domination by one party, independence and expertise. If these existing qualities, bolstered by a greater representativeness, can be transferred to the reformed House, we believe that a new legitimacy, which we have already highlighted in considering the House's role, will naturally develop.”

Within this context the second chamber which the report envisioned would be comprised of around 600 members who serve 12 year tenures. The role of the Appointments Commission would be greater, whilst the PM would retain some power over nominations. The report also suggested that a vote should be put to Parliament on the membership of the House of Lords and how this is decided upon, with seven options up for consideration:

1. Fully appointed 2. Fully elected 3. 80 per cent appointed / 20 per cent elected 4. 80 per cent elected / 20 per cent appointed 5. 60 per cent appointed / 40 per cent elected 6. 60 per cent elected / 40 per cent appointed 7. 50 per cent appointed / 50 per cent elected

96 Joint Committee on House of Lords Reform.FirstReport. 2002 http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/jt200203/jtselect/jtholref/17/1702.htm

Page 53 Report 2017_Layout 1 26/04/2017 15:10 Page 54

Integration & Minorities Report 2017

These options were indeed put to both Houses in 2003, the results were as follows:

Results of parliamentary votes, 4 February 2003

Option Lords Commons

Elected Appointed Contents Not-Contents Aye No

0% 100% 335 110 245 323 20% 80% 39 375 –– 40% 60% 60 358 –– 50% 50% 84 322 –– 60% 40% 91 317 253 316 80% 20% 93 338 281 284 100% 0% 106 329 272 289

(http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/2725769.stm)

As MPs rejected all the options the momentum to reform the House was lost; it became apparent that there was not sufficient support for any direction of change, especially as the only approval came from the Lords themselves and that was for no change to how the members of the House are selected.

House of Lords: Reform 2007: This set-back in 2003 meant that for a number of years the issue of reforming the House of Lords received limited political attention. It was not until 2007 that a serious debate reached Parliament again. Following the publication of the Government White Paper, House of Lords: Reform97 and polls that suggest the majority of the public was in favour of electing members of the House of Lords, Parliament was once again given the opportunity to vote on how members of the House were selected. The results were quite different this time round:

97 HM Government.The House of Lords: Reform. 2007. https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/228891/7027.pdf

Page 54 Report 2017_Layout 1 26/04/2017 15:10 Page 55

Integration & Minorities Report 2017

Parliamentary votes for an appointed House of Lords, 7/14 March 2007

Option Lords Commons

Elected Appointed For Against For Against

0% 100% 361 121 196 375 20% 80% –––– 40% 60% –––– 50% 50% 46 409 155 418 60% 40% 45 392 178 392 80% 20% 114 336 305 267 100% 0% 112 326 337 224

The Commons voted in favour of a fully elected HoL, whilst the Lords themselves voted for maintaining the status quo. As with the 2003 vote, such divided opinion was to cause problems moving forward with reform. The matter was not able to progress before there was a change of Government following the 2010 general election, despite the fact that the majority of MPs and the majority of the public favoured the introduction of elections as opposed to appointments for House of Lords membership.

Draft Reform Bill 2011: In the run-up to the 2010 general election, reforming the House of Lords could be found in the manifesto of all three major political parties. It came as no surprise, therefore, when in 2011 the Deputy Prime Minister and the leader of the Liberal Democrats presented Parliament with a draft reform Bill98 . The main proposals of this Bill were for the Lords to consist of a 300 member House that was made up of elected and appointed members serving for single 15 year terms. This was developed into the House of Lords Reform Bill which was put before the Commons in 2012.99 In line with the Draft Bill, the Reform Bill proposed a 300 member House with 80% elected members, appointed members and Church of England Bishops. Members would serve for 15 year terms. With regard to appointments the House of Lords Appointment Commission would play a greater role and the number of bishops would be reduced. The Bill, in the end, did not have the support of the opposition Labour Party, there was also a significant number of Conservative MPs prepared to rebel against the Government on the matter. As it became apparent that the Government would not win vote on the Bill, in August 2012 this piece of legislation to reform the House of Lords was withdrawn.

Reform Acts 2014 and 2015: Following on from these failed attempts at reform, in 2014 a piece of legislation was finally passed. The House of Lords Reform Act 2014100 means that members of the HoL can now retire, which before had been impossible, and that members can also be excluded in 98 HM Government.House of Lords Reform Draft Bill. 2011. https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/229020/8077.pdf 99 Parliament.House of Lords Reform Bill 2012-2013. http://services.parliament.uk/bills/2012-13/houseoflordsreform.html 100 HM Government.House of Lords Reform Act 2014.http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2014/24/pdfs/ukpga_20140024_en.pdf

Page 55 Report 2017_Layout 1 26/04/2017 15:10 Page 56

Integration & Minorities Report 2017

the event of them committing a serious crime. This was followed by the House of Lords Suspension and Expulsion Act 2015101 which gave the House powers to expel or suspend members.

Parliamentary Debates: After the success of these two Acts there seems to be renewed momentum behind further reforms; several debates have come up in both Houses of Parliament regarding the matter in the last year. In June 2015 Conservative MP David Morris brought up a debate regarding the number of members in the House and the age of members, suggesting that the House membership should be reduced to around 500 and that the mean age should be reduced from the 70 years it was at that time102. In September of that same year there was a motion by Lord Steel of Aikwood for members of the HoL aged over 80 to retire.103 At the same time Baroness Stonewell of Beeston brought a motion to take note of the issue of such a high number of members in the House. In January of 2016 Martin John Dochery, an SNP MP, again brought to the commons a debate regarding Lords reform,104 the issues of the size of the House and the lack of accountability over appointments were brought up.

Private Members Bills: Following on from all of this talk of further reforms, two private members bill have been brought forward on the matter, one in the Commons and one in the Lords. The Commons bill was put forward by Labour MP David Hanson and is concerned with the removal of the remaining hereditary peers105. The Lords Bill was brought forward by Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb and calls for some members of the Lords to be elected, for the size of the House to be reduced and for the remaining hereditary peers to be removed. The outcome of both these Bills remains to be seen. Lord Desai: In addition, members of the House of Lords themselves have been arguing that if reforms do not take place then the House will no longer be effective, particularly due to its size. Lord Desai in particular has argued for the Government to push through a reduction in size by using the Parliament Act of 1949, which states that the House of Lords can only delay a Bill initiated in the Commons by two sessions over one year.106 He believes that representation in the HoL should be regional, with 30 members for the 13 regions of the country.

Looking at the reforms that have been attempted since 1999 we can identify some principal concerns that those seeking reform have highlighted, these include:

• The number of members in the HoL is too large • Restrictions on how long members can serve in the House should be considered • The issue of whether Lords should be elected is of great importance • It is questionable whether hereditary peers should keep their seats in the House

Although all of these concerns are valid, as has been highlighted by evidence in previous sections of this report, one of our main concerns has not been addressed by these proposals. The issue of religious and ethnic minority representation has not directly featured in recent debates; we believe that this emphasises the importance of this work as well as the above point regarding race related concerns generally being brought to the forefront by minorities themselves; it is perhaps the lack of minority representatives that means that these issues have not gained further momentum. 102 Hansard.House of Lords Reform. July 2015https://hansard.parliament.uk/Commons/2015-06-23/debates/15062351000001/HouseOfLordsReform 103 Hansard.House of Lords Reform Act 2014. Sept 2015. https://hansard.parliament.uk/Lords/2015-09-15/debates/15091564000300/HouseOfLordsReformAct201 104 Hansard.House of Lords Reform. Jan 2016 https://hansard.parliament.uk/Commons/2016-01-14/debates/16011449000002/HouseOfLordsReform 105 Parliament.House of Lords Reform (Exclusion of Hereditary Peers) Act 2015.http://services.parliament.uk/bills/2015- 16/houseoflordsreformexclusionofhereditarypeers.html 106 Parliament.Parliament Act, 1949.http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Geo6/12-13-14/103

Page 56 Report 2017_Layout 1 26/04/2017 15:10 Page 57

Integration & Minorities Report 2017

Proposed reforms for a House of Peers (HoP)

We sincerely believe that the House of Lords is a great institution with invaluable traditions that we need to preserve. The HoL is an effective second chamber, providing appropriate checks and balances and it is sufficiently successful when it comes to revising legislation. In addition, the HoL does not compete with the Commons, adequately maintaining the kind of separation that should be in place. It is imperative that we not only keep such an important institution, but that we ensure that it becomes the best version of itself; this is where reform comes in.

We also believe that there are a great many members of the HoL who diligently work hard and who bring important contributions to the table. However, we also believe that at least anywhere up to a 1/3rd of current members simply enjoy the benefits of being Lords – and pontificate as a law onto themselves. Besides, there are also financial benefits of their membership, it was recently reported that “multimillionaire peers are claiming up to £40,000 a year in allowances and expenses while making little or no contribution to debates, committees or questions”107. Indeed the financial claims should be immediately broken down by half-day units so claimants coming for only a few hours can claim what is rightly due to them for the time spent, plus travel and accommodation and other work related allowances. But in addition to those costing the taxpayer without contribution, these ineffective Lords also hinder democratic debate by blocking the entry of new talent into the House. As a result, the conduct of such members can be said to be bordering on the not-so-honourable.

It seems therefore clear that, in line with other countries, our second chamber needs to be modernised. The changes that were brought in following the House of Lords Act in 1999 were positive; however, as has been said since then, a second set of reforms is very much needed. In today’s world many do not relate to the HoL in any way, shape or form; they see it as an elitist institution. We do not go so far as to argue that people’s titles should be removed, we do not see this tradition as needing replacement.

However, there are ways in which it could be made less alienating to the majority of the public. For example, the name House of Lords in and of itself seems to suggest some inequalities. For one, the House is made up of both Lords and Baronesses, yet it is only the Lords who are recognised in the name. The name HoL is not gender neutral. In addition, Lords immediately conjures the sort of hierarchical disparity that those who say the House is elitist refer to. In reality, the Lords are also ordinary people, albeit most accomplished; just like ordinary people many are good but some sadly are bad apples. To tackle these two points we believe that it would be more appropriate to call the House the House of Peers (HoP) – removing the connotations with the ‘hierarchical’ nomenclature of ‘Lords’. Let it be a House of Peers, albeit peers of expert knowledge with an over- arching judgement. The name ‘House of Peers’ is gender neutral.

In the interests of preserving tradition the tile Lord or Baron and Baroness should be kept for ceremonial purposes and for senior accomplished British national stalwarts keeping these traditional titles inspires others to achieve such accolades but for a democratic debate those who are serving a term at the HoP should be simply referred to as Peers. This will enrich debate which at the moment

107 https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/revealed-rich-peers-paid-for-doing-nothing-hz5jv3vw7

Page 57 Report 2017_Layout 1 26/04/2017 15:10 Page 58

Integration & Minorities Report 2017

if you go through the recent Hansards sometimes it comes across as trivia.

HoP should be referred to as the Revising House not Upper House. House of Commons is not a lower house, in fact it is the supreme house in its power over legislation. This high/low hierarchy no longer sits easy with modern thinking.

There are also a number of substantive reforms that we believe should be introduced. First and foremost we see a pressing need to increase the number of crossbenchers in the House; a ratio of 51% crossbenchers to 49% political Peers is what we believe would be most suitable. This ratio would ensure a true independence from the Commons and any one political party. Political Peers should be elected either directly by the public or indirectly by the parliament and in order to protect the efficacy of the revising chamber their numbers should be adjusted every five years, or earlier in case of a general election, in line with the results of a general election, so that HoC’s MPs ratio should mirror-image their party ratios in HoP.

Crossbenchers on the other hand, should be selected by a designated body based on their knowledge, experience, judgement and leadership qualities. The House of Commons is not filled with accomplished experts in any particular field, as representatives of a constituency these career politicians have a different role. The 51% crossbenchers, though, should be representatives of experiential-knowledge. Although we do not believe crossbenchers should be subjected to a popular vote, a rigorous selection process should be in place; this selection could be conducted by a revised Appointment Commission which, as we mentioned earlier, we believe should have twice as many members as it currently does. The name ‘Appointments Commission’ could be revisited then too.

Democracy should not be reduced to Demography by placing an exclusive emphasis on elections. What we hear is the popular slogan of unelected HoL for its ill-repute, but how could it make it a standard bearer of democracy by popular elections which are now tainted by clever marketing and populism? A 100% elected chamber of the revisionists Peers will be not only be a mockery of democracy but most accomplished knowledge oriented people will not offer themselves for elections by those who know little about their subject of accomplishment. Political Peers should be elected by the parliament indirectly or by population directly but the Crossbench Peers should only be selected through a rigorous appointments procedure.

The political spin that there won’t be enough people to apply to the Crossbench is simply a sign of their own career protectionism, the wealth of experiential-knowledge for policy from practising professionals, industry stalwarts, investigative journalists, eminent civil servants and so many stake- holders comprise a huge pool of talent which is blocked by the current system.

A third of crossbenchers should also be subject to retirement based on length of service, of three fixed 5 year terms. The revised Commission would have more power than it currently does and be entirely independent, and thereby also curtail some of the Prime Minister’s absolute power.

Page 58 Report 2017_Layout 1 26/04/2017 15:10 Page 59

Integration & Minorities Report 2017

The 1/3rd retirement rule based on length of service every 5 years for crossbenchers, (and perhaps 2 months after the formation of a new Government at the HoC for political party alignment), should, however, allow a re-application to the cabinet office by those who still wish to contribute after a 15 year period for verification of their contribution record, we believe this will automatically take care of the over-bloated HoP within a few 5 year term periods, to settle at about half its current size. The 1/3rd retirement rule will limit the Lords and Baronesses to sit as Peers up to a maximum period of 15 years and in this fast moving global world of today we believe 15 years should suffice as a good norm to maintain a long term check on legislative policy which may otherwise be occasionally sacrificed by the unintended but inevitable short termism in the HoC. In addition all Crossbench Peers not automatically retiring at the end of a 5 year term should submit their record for review to the cabinet office before they get automatically appointed into their 2nd and 3rd term of 5 years.

HoP should be led by the Crossbench and the political party elite must trust the non-aligned public to represent their political interests in a similar proportion to their general election proportions on legislation revisions that are being voted on for the country as a whole and not just for the party. This trust will go some way towards avoiding populism.

HoP cannot block a bill, it can only delay its enactment which still can be expedited to pass the bill with instruments at the disposal of the Governing party in the HoC, so this obsession to have the same proportion of political party representation of peers at HoL to the proportion at HoC is not entirely justified, nonetheless the 49% political peer alignment after 2 months of a general election should be sufficient to appease the partisan elite.

Out of the retired pool on occasions when a retired expert could reasonably contribute to the debate in question then there should be a system to allow that peer’s contribution by application to the Cabinet office, but without the benefit of a vote on the legislation. Equally the non-aligned peers who are otherwise politically partisan and so appointed or the ones who become non-aligned as a result of defecting from a party should not be allowed to carry the benefit of a vote on legislation. Indeed they may apply to the Appointments Commission for a Crossbench position to get back their voting rights.

For an independent HoP as an effective revising chamber not in competition with HoC we believe it’s important to maintain the 51% voting rights of the Crossbench v/s. the 49% of political parties.

Besides the above proposals we also believe that there should be a cap on the number of members that there are allowed to sit as Peers; current levels are unsustainable and counterproductive. In line with this, there need to be measures in place for removing members from the House. In addition, we need to ensure that minority individuals, both with regard to race and religion, have an equal opportunity to enter the House.

Page 59 Report 2017_Layout 1 26/04/2017 15:10 Page 60

Integration & Minorities Report 2017

The Appointments Commission’s terms of reference for selection should be subjected to adhere to the laws of this nation, each panel member held to account to the Nolan principles, by an over- seeing select committee comprised of Peers from Crossbench and political parties. Presently we have the ridiculous situation where the Chair’s appointment is mildly interviewed for any conflicts of interest by a HoC select committee of MPs, of the ‘other place’ – the integrity of a mild healthy rivalry for the sake of independence ought to be maintained by investing in separate select committees at the HoP.

Our British forefathers had the foresight to set up a parliamentary institution to best serve democracy by splitting the Institution into a HoC to represent the people and a revising chamber of experts to represent knowledge. For a fuller wholesome democracy we need both, a representation of people and a representation of knowledge. It is said that knowledge makes people humble and a majority of the Peers are humble but those who become a law unto themselves, conduct social engineering projects on the people, occupy seats dishonourably to block further talent for their fresh contribution to democracy and indeed those who do not even have appeared to show respect for the Equality Laws of this country, have become a black mark on this great institution.

Both Houses must be independent in their work mode for the Great British Democracy model which many nations have borrowed and hitherto looked up to. Now we believe there is a need to modernise that model with a 51% of ‘accomplished-experts’ ratio representing experiential- knowledge and a 49% political-peers ratio for people’s representation by perhaps the 13 regions proposed already in an earlier reform paper above.

The 1949 Act of Parliament means that the Reforms for a HoP are in the absolute power of the Prime Minister.

Page 60 Report 2017_Layout 1 26/04/2017 15:10 Page 61

Integration & Minorities Report 2017

Caste Legislation

The issue of caste legislation will now be looked at as an example of two things. First, it is an example of the HoL making unrepresentative decisions; and second, it is an example of how the imposition of British values can actually be counterproductive and rather than further integrate a group it can alienate them. This legislation has resulted in a conflict between a group that has historically integrated extremely well due to the imposition of outside values; thereby creating an unnecessary drift between the British Indian Hindu community and the establishment.

The caste legislation clause was mischievously inserted by Lord Harries at the debate stage of the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Act 2013. The proposed clause was not based on facts, indeed the Dalit population effected was estimated by him at over 400,000, when the actual number is 40,000. The point to note here is how the House of Lords is out of touch with the public, how they are unrepresentative and believe they can impose their experiments of social engineering on British citizens, purely to satisfy their whim.

British Indians are considered the most successful immigrant group in the UK’s recent history108, both with regard to integration and economic advancement. Examples of their success include:

• 75.7% of British Indian students in England obtain five or more ‘Good’ GCSE (including English and Maths), compared to 60.5% of White British students, and 13.6% of British Indian students obtain three A*-A grades or better, compared to 10% of White British students.

• 26% of British Indian students in England go on to university at the top-third of Higher Education Institutes, compared to 15% of White British students.

• British Indians are over-represented in the medical profession, accounting for 12% of all doctors in the UK – while accounting for only 2.3% of the population109.

• The first non-white Members of Parliament were British Indians and as a group remain well represented in Government110.

In addition, British Indians’ demographic integration is successful; with them living in some of the most diverse parts of the country such as North West London. Moreover, the percentage of British Indians who identify as British is very high, 58%; with 54% of Hindus and Sikhs reporting only a British national identity. Both these figures are amongst the highest for any group and far above the average 111.

Despite being heralded as an integration success story, an issue has arisen in recent years that is leading considerable numbers within the British Indian Hindu & Sikh communities to feel that their views and beliefs are being disrespected and that there is an attempt to impose values on them. Issues such as the imposition of values can have a deeper effect on migrant groups than one may initially appreciate. In particular, for those from the former British colonies, for whom a history of imposition and abuses upon their people soon come to mind, creating a far greater emotional 108 http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/india/11981677/British-Indians-a-remarkable-story-of-success.html 109 https://www.demos.co.uk/press-release/integration-hub-reveals-mixed-fortunes-of-britains-minorities-2/ 110 http://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Summary/SN01156#fullreport 111 http://www.ethnicity.ac.uk/medialibrary/briefingsupdated/who-feels-british.pdf

Page 61 Report 2017_Layout 1 26/04/2017 15:10 Page 62

Integration & Minorities Report 2017

response than others may anticipate or understand. The issue of caste legislation has done precisely this. In part, this has been due to a lack of understanding of the caste phenomenon and in part due to the labelling of this as an Indian problem when in reality caste is something that is present in many different societies.

The idea of legislation to deal with caste discrimination was seriously tabled for the first time in the UK in 2008 during the debate on the Equality Bill. Currently, caste discrimination is not specifically banned in the UK; although it is stipulated in the Equality Act 2010 that secondary legislation needs to be introduced to classify caste as an aspect of race, thereby making caste discrimination a form of race discrimination.

Government documents on caste admit that it is a complex concept, they presume though that it is “generally understood to refer to hereditary, endogamous (marrying within group) communities differentiated according to different functions of life, such as occupation”. They also state that is a concept associated with South Asia, in particular India and the Indian diaspora in Britain.

With the focus on caste as an ‘Indian (Hindu Sikh Jain) problem’ in the UK, there are two points which British Indian Hindus find problematic. The first is that they do not believe that there is an issue of caste discrimination in Britain and thus there is no need for legislation to deal with this problem. Secondly, they point out that the majority of Hindus born in the UK are unaware of, or simply do not care for the Indian hierarchies of the caste system112. In advance of the legislation being brought forward in 2010 no government research had been carried out into the matter; rather, based on the opinion of several lobby groups who were highlighting this as a problem, it was presumed that this was an issue that should be legislated against. It should be noted at this point that this is the first time when anti-discrimination legislation was brought forward on the assumption that there was a problem as opposed to on there being an established fact on the matter113. The Government did, however, commission reports. The first report was conducted by the National Institute of Economic and Social Research in 2010 and it concluded that there was evidence of caste discrimination in relation to work, provision of services and education which would most effectively be dealt with caste-specific provisions.114 The other two reports were carried out by the Equality and Human Right’s Commission in 2014 endorsed the cases of earlier evidence of caste discrimination in the UK.115 Critics of these reports, though, point to a number of flaws in them. Firstly, the reports were sought by the government after the decision on legislation had been made and therefore they have been used to give strength to an existing policy position. Secondly, the evidence and research methods used in these reports has been questioned by experts in the field who argue against the methods used and the results found116. Whilst there have been some cases of taunting and name calling of Dalits in the UK, there is no evidence of discrimination against any caste in jobs, health and education sectors. The taunting has predominantly been the result of farmer communities from India who used to employ Dalits carrying the nature of their relationship from India into the UK. EMF condemns any behaviour such behaviour, however,

112 http://www.hinducounciluk.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/the_caste_system.pdf 113 http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/religionpublicsphere/2016/10/what-lies-behind-the-inclusion-of-caste-in-the-uk-equality-act/ 114 https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/85522/caste-discrimination.pdf 115 https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/sites/default/files/research-report-92-caste-in-britain-experts-seminar-and-stakeholders-workshop.pdf 116 http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/religionpublicsphere/2016/10/what-lies-behind-the-inclusion-of-caste-in-the-uk-equality-act/

Page 62 Report 2017_Layout 1 26/04/2017 15:10 Page 63

Integration & Minorities Report 2017

these are isolated cases of name calling and taunting for which a tiny number of people do need to be educated but we do not believe that it demonstrates that there is a need for the legislation in question which affects everyone else who do find such name calling behaviours abhorrent.

In addition research shows that despite the focus on British Indians, caste is actually a feature of a number of different societies. Besides the countries of the Indian sub-continent, caste stratification has been identified by the United Nations as also existing in the following countries: 117

Sri Lanka: Sri Lanka has two caste systems, one for the Tamils and one for the Sinhalese. The Sinhalese one is not linked to Hinduism but rather was a result of a hierarchical feudal society. This system does not have a notion of being debased associated with it and no untouchables. It has been described as: “The absence of the Hindu concept had rendered the Sinhalese caste system mild and humanitarian when judged by Indian standards.” British rule, which meant caste distinctions were not officially recognized, resulted in a greater mobility between the castes. The Tamil caste system is linked to an idea of being debased and there are untouchable castes. Although discrimination has decreased it still takes place, especially in places of worship. The government has brought in anti- discrimination legislation to try and improve the situation.

Nepal: Nepal has a caste system very similar to India’s; its population is predominantly Hindu. Around 21% of the population are thought to be untouchables. Although untouchability was made illegal in the 1960s, its practice was not made punishable until the 1990s. Since then the government has tried to continue improving the situation of these people; however, it is reported that discrimination remains.

Japan: In feudal Japan the Buraku were regarded as the lowest in society and as a debased people due to the work they carried out. They are today estimated to number between 3 and 4 million and despite a legal structure to protect them discrimination continues to take place.

Burakumin butchers in Japan

117 http://www.mpil.de/files/pdf1/mpunyb_06_kugelmann_11.pdf

Page 63 Report 2017_Layout 1 26/04/2017 15:10 Page 64

Integration & Minorities Report 2017

Japan: In feudal Japan the Buraku were regarded as the lowest in society and as a debased people due to the work they carried out. They are today estimated to number between 3 and 4 million and despite a legal structure to protect them discrimination continues to take place.

Pakistan: In Swat, in northern Pakistan, a caste similar to that of India is clear amongst the Sunni Muslim population. There is a concept of being debased but this is not linked to birth, rather to occupation. In Sindh Province there are estimated to be 1.8 million untouchables, originally from India, living in bondage.

Endogamous occupational groups in West Africa: Such groups are evidenced in 15 ethnic groups and 14 countries of West Africa, they account for between 5 and 20% of the relevant populations. Membership to these groups is dictated by birth. Many of the groups are regarded as ‘impure’ by the rest of the population and some are considered as debased. Members of these groups are often socially segregated, intermarriage is forbidden. Discrimination and rights violations remain widespread.

Groups in North-East Africa (the Dime and others): Several populations in North-East Africa discriminate on the basis of work and descent. The Dime people in Ethiopia are highlighted as being divided into castes, with pure and impure groups. Although this also happens in other places.

The Watta: former hunter-gatherers of North-East Africa: These people in northern Kenya, central and western Ethiopia, and the northern part of the United Republic of Tanzania. They are marginalised based on traditional occupations as hunter-gatherers. They are also seen as impure due to their ancestors having eaten dirty animals.

Somali sab groups (Midgan-Madibhan, Tumal and Yibir): Somali society is separated into clans, with the sab at the bottom of the hierarchy, they are an occupationally designated group. They are thought to constitute around 1% of the population. They occupations they are associated with are considered as debased and so segregated. As with other groups intermarriage is particularly strict.

Akhdam children in Yemen

Page 64 Report 2017_Layout 1 26/04/2017 15:10 Page 65

Integration & Minorities Report 2017

Akhdam of Yemen: These people are estimated to number around 200,000 and rank even lower in society than former slaves. They are segregated and considered as being dirty. They are discriminated against due to their occupation (traditionally sweepers) and reputed origin from Ethiopia

Osu of Igboland: Although the system that included Osus had been banned by the 1950s, discrimination and segregation continues.

Considering that this as a phenomenon is clearly present throughout a number of different cultures, the representation of it as an Indian and Hindu problem is misleading. Moreover, it results in a negative image of Indians and Hindus being projected and perceived in the UK whilst this legislation is pursued. This negative image, which can extend to discrimination, is in part the result of a misunderstanding and misrepresentation of what caste actually is. Some Hindu advocates argue that the intent behind this misrepresentation is actually driven by a position of prejudice. They state that this is in fact a case of religious discrimination, with particular Christian groups pushing an anti- Hindu agenda due to it being a different faith to their own.118 They go on to explain that although from a religious perspective there is differentiation between the castes in Hinduism, that this is not hierarchical. They accept that this is a stratification that has taken place and which has resulted in many being discriminated against, however, they argue that this is in fact largely due to the colonial experience and a desire of the British rulers to control and divide Indian society.119 There are scholars that have stated that it was British colonialism which led to the hierarchical stratification of Indian society and the division of castes that is so criticised; furthermore, they point that academic study of the issue has been tainted by colonialism’s lens120.

The above is not to say that this position is in any way allowing discrimination. Rather, it is arguing that the stratification of the castes in law when there is no actual problem that needs to be addressed will actually result in discrimination and segregation taking place as these labels will become cemented and emphasised; which is exactly what happened in India when the British colonial rulers 1ntroduced the caste schedule121. Moreover, they believe that existing legislation in place in the UK can deal with issues of discrimination appropriately without the negative impact on the Indian (Hindu Sikh Jain) communities.

The issue of whether there is a need for specific legislation to deal with caste discrimination was brought to the British courts with the case of Tirkey v Chandhok. It was claimed by Tirkey that she had been mistreated and paid below the legal minimum wage whilst working as a maid, and later she added that this had been, in part, due to her caste, as an Indian Christian Dalit. Chandhok applied to strike this argument on the basis that:

• that “caste” did not fall within the definition of “race” in s 9(1) Equality Act 2010; and • that the enactment of s 9(5), both initially and as subsequently amended by the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Act 2013 (which inserted s 97 (Equality Act 2010: caste as an aspect of race) into the principal Act), demonstrated that Parliament recognised that “caste” was excluded from the definition in s 9(1)123. 118 http://www.hinducounciluk.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/the_caste_system.pdf 119 http://www.hinducounciluk.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/the_caste_system.pdf 120 https://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/handle/2027.42/51136/368.pdf?sequence=1 121 http://www.hinducounciluk.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/the_caste_system.pdf 122 http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/2014/0190_14_1912.html 123 http://www.lawandreligionuk.com/2014/12/20/does-caste-fall-within-the-definition-of-race-in-s-9-equality-act-2010/

Page 65 Report 2017_Layout 1 26/04/2017 15:10 Page 66

Integration & Minorities Report 2017

On this matter Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) ruled that the existing concept of ethnic origin, which is part of the definition of one of the protected characteristics of race in the Equality Act, “is sufficiently wide to capture many acts of caste discrimination”124. As part of its rationale the EAT pointed out that legislation in place prior to Equality Act, such as the Race Relations Act 1976, already recognised that ethnic groups could include descent from an actual or perceived group125.

The definition of race in the Equality Act is as follows:

Race (1) Race includes — (a) colour; (b) nationality; (c) ethnic or national origins. (2) In relation to the protected characteristic of race — (a) a reference to a person who has a particular protected characteristic is a reference to a person of a particular racial group; (b) a reference to persons who share a protected characteristic is a reference to persons of the same racial group.

(3) A racial group is a group of persons defined by reference to race; and a reference to a person's racial group is a reference to a racial group into which the person falls.

(4) The fact that a racial group comprises two or more distinct racial groups does not prevent it from constituting a particular racial group.

(5) A Minister of the Crown F1... — (a) [F2must by order] amend this section so as to provide for caste to be an aspect of race; (b) [F3may by order] amend this Act so as to provide for an exception to a provision of this Act to apply, or not to apply, to caste or to apply, or not to apply, to caste in specified circumstances. (6) The power under section 207(4)(b), in its application to subsection (5), includes power to amend this Act.

As the result of the ETA decision the Government itself has admitted that current existing legislation was capable of dealing the problem and that existing prohibition of race discrimination was deemed as covering the circumstances of the case126.

This case was an incident of a rich family employing a poor maid and paying her an unacceptably low wage – as they would have done in India. The UK legal process rightly ruled that this behaviour was unacceptable. Then judge also rightly concluded that the issue of caste was covered by existing legislation and that discrimination based on ethnicity will not be tolerated in this country.

124 http://ohrh.law.ox.ac.uk/caste-discrimination-under-uk-law-chandhok-v-tirkey/ 125 http://ohrh.law.ox.ac.uk/caste-discrimination-under-uk-law-chandhok-v-tirkey/ 126 http://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Summary/SN06862

Page 66 Report 2017_Layout 1 26/04/2017 15:10 Page 67

Integration & Minorities Report 2017

Moreover, caste legislation has been shown, for example in India, to only partially work. Although resources have been allocated for Dalits in India and quotas of representation have been put in place, divisions have been entrenched by the legislation which singles out the Dalits. In the UK the law could do exactly this, entrenching difference and further dividing people. A reliance on case law, as opposed to the proposed legislation, would therefore be a more effective way of preventing discrimination.

In addition, from the perspective of our report this entire issue can be erroneously viewed as the failure of enforcing British values upon minority communities. The British Indian community has historically been extremely successful with regard to integration; a policy position based on values resulting from religious differences means that now this is a group which is feeling discriminated against.

A project of social engineering attempted by the HoL, led by Lord Harries, Baroness Flather and originally supported from HoC by Jeremy Corbyn as from the time he was a backbench MP – who was then kept under reins by the more cohesive politics of Tony Blair but ultimately came to prominence under Ed Miliband - on the most integrated communities (Hindu, Sikhs and Jains) through caste legislation, when even the eminent Judges in courts of law conclude that such discrimination is already covered under existing race and ethnicity legislation shows how parts of the establishment is not only out of touch with the public and the laws of the country but seemingly works against the public interests; and yet they then complain of ‘populism’.

The hierarchical distinctions of caste in India did get corrupted from a more fluid system – which was also wrong – to a more rigid one, set in stone type, more so really only after the British Raj Census categorisations of people by caste partly to facilitate their ‘divide and rule’ policy to work which was deemed to be a necessity for ruling the ‘masses by the few’. Although the Indians had become protective and insulars within their own castes or communities – even to protect their women – much earlier under some of the Islamists regimes of the Mughals and the Dalit word itself, for the ‘crushed’ Indians under their oppression, originated in the Mughal era, the East India Company, initially interested in India’s riches through trade though at its terms with the negotiating force of its guns, later in the 19th century it started to develop its divide and rule policy to rule India. Indian Guru-Kuls or Schools which evidently enrolled all castes were abolished to be replaced by Christian schools for the privileged few to produce ‘Babus’ to run the British Raj administration to control the masses. And now again, in this country which is the only home the Indian Diaspora knows, by a similar attempt to divide them by Caste, which in effect is now just by their Surnames since that is only how castes, which are being forgotten in the public arena, can be now identified, has also far reaching adverse connotations for many other world communities who have made UK their home also; it is a recipe for British ethnic minorities division and dis-integration, a backward policy of anti-cohesion.

The legislation will bring back the caste system of India into the UK. The Tirkey v Chandhok case exemplifies that as an employment abuse case where a poor maid was paid below the minimum wage the caste legislation lobby advised her to later add ‘caste’ as a discriminatory factor – this is bringing

Page 67 Report 2017_Layout 1 26/04/2017 15:10 Page 68

Integration & Minorities Report 2017

back the caste system into UK, whereas under employment law Tirkey was well covered. It is of course right that caste also in this case as a discriminatory factor was found to be covered under the existing race laws so that in a genuine case of caste discrimination in the UK laws would be able to give protection against such types of abhorrent discrimination. We are proud of the UK law that it offers that protection for any caste discrimination. Akin to this case, in fact, a priest Dr Harish Chandra of a Brahmin caste was paid £2 an hour well below the minimum wage by his employers Arya Samaj Birmingham and the courts awarded him a compensation of £62,000 in July 2014 but in this case he did not site caste as a discriminatory factor, it was a simple employment case as indeed was Tirkey’s, in our view.

In India Mahatma Gandhi was against caste legislation for the same reasons of rigidifying caste distinctions further but after his demise the Indian politicians in their wisdom legislated against caste discrimination which also meant that they had to keep caste as a category in the census. However in the absence of case law and other race laws in a new democracy then the legislation may have been seem to be a good idea but there too it should had been confined to the poor Dalit discrimination rather than apply to all castes, which had the effect of keeping caste alive in the public arena. India recognised the need to empower the poor Dalits, in parallel to the caste legislation, and a 26% quota system to allocate jobs and education places for those castes was also legislated for. That was then a necessity as those castes were left far behind by the colonial onslaught on India’s resources. But the legislation covering the entire society for all castes did not help to eradicate it which otherwise may have been the case by now.

The caste legislation lobby in the UK’s primary purpose was to help the Christian converted Dalits of India – who lost their automatic quota benefits by converting as to Christianity by virtue of the fact that Christianity has no caste system and the main reason the missionaries induced conversions by – so once the euphoria of conversion wore off and the converted Christians found themselves in no better economic position promised by the missionaries the All India Catholic Christian Bishops Conference lobbied the India Government to re-allocate the converted Christian Dalits the same 26% automatic quota rights back. The Government refused but allowed them to apply for such rights under the ‘Backward Caste’ category. However this category requires an application process, it’s not an automatic right, and thus as from the year 2000 the Indian Christians sought help of the UN, some Europe countries – where they failed incidentally to bring caste legislation – and the UK to then show to the Indian Government that caste one cannot escape even as immigrants in foreign countries so as to pressure the India Government to then reallocate the 26% automatic quota rights, even though they do get the same rights through the category of Backward Caste, (frankly these nomenclatures don’t sit easy with British Indians either but India is a sovereign state which only it can know the best policies for its advancement).

However it’s is important to acknowledge how the UK is being used as a Guinea pig by the Indian Christian lobby group for India laws and their attempts as we see in the in the Tirkey v Chandhok case, exemplifies it.

In UK we are free of such wide based caste legislation, free of such tags of categorisation in our

Page 68 Report 2017_Layout 1 26/04/2017 15:10 Page 69

Integration & Minorities Report 2017

census data, so far, and the caste legislation will bring these caste classifications back into the UK, which have never been important here in the UK. All castes mingle together, all go to any temple - there is never a mention of any caste - and we are brought up here by UK equality laws. Caste is just a familial ‘Surname’ associated aspect, if at all, but never discriminatory.

The Caste legislation lobby of Dalit Solidarity Network (DSN) and Voice for Dalits International (VODI) are both politicised Indian Christian organisations who have been successful in persuading a small community of Panjabi – no other Indian state’s - Hindus and Sikhs of the discrimination they suffered in India to join their lobby group, and for a tiny proportion of this Panjabi community the cause is simply to do with India and to some extent they now rich and well to do here have become vengeful of the discrimination their families may have suffered in India over the last millennium. This DSN and VODI could do that here in UK as these small Panjabi Hindu and Sikh communities had their own Temples and Gurdwaras, so DSN and VODI started to go there as from 15 years ago so as there to inflame their people to basically evangelise them to take up this cause. Thus Castewatch a British Dalit (Panjabi Hindu and Sikh) organisation began to receive funding from the caste legislation lobby and divisions started to take place. This was an anti- cohesive activity which over time the Christian Dalit lobby group has been successful in internally dividing the larger well-integrated Hindu and Sikh communities, with the help of Castewatch UK. In parallel DSN’s Reverend David Haslam used to preach in Churches during the last decade against caste to be evil. Castewatch UK working hand in hand with DSN made ‘Caste is Evil’ their rallying slogan on their placards in demonstrations at the HoL when the Lords debated the issue in 2012. The debates published in the Hansard show the poor quality of debates with fabricated statistics. Caste is not evil, it is benign. Caste is effectively equivalent to Indian Surname groupings. Are the Indian (Hindu Sikh Jain) communities or their cultures or their behaviours or their ways of life considered evil?

The Indian (Hindu Sikh Jain) communities in the UK have moved beyond caste distinctions to more community based cohesive organisations like covering much larger groups, e.g., Sanatan is limitless, Arya Samaj, Patel, Lohana, Prajapati, Ramgaria, and even the various Panjabi Dalit caste groups have formed the Ravidassiya and Valmiki communities and so on, who all mingle with each other and never discriminate against. Castes or Clans or Communities cannot be evil, it is the discrimination that is evil, it’s untouchability that is evil and in Britain there are no untouchables and even the Dalits are all equal among other communities in the UK – indeed the word ‘Dalit’ was imported into the UK during the last decade by the Christian Dalit caste legislation lobby as explained earlier.

Dame Casey report on integration mentions every single issue which needs addressing but it is silent on caste discrimination because there is none. The caste lobby legislation had its political agenda and although some of the Hindu and Sikh Dalit groups joined them through Castewatch UK it’s sad that political liberalist ideologues in Britain fell prey to it also. Liberalism in its extreme form goes against natural human endeavourers to find ‘togetherness’ among family, community, society, and nation. This is exactly how the Indian (Hindu Sikh Jain) communities are developing their integration route through.

Page 69 Report 2017_Layout 1 26/04/2017 15:10 Page 70

Integration & Minorities Report 2017

Dalit is not a caste, it’s a group of many castes to denote them all under the generic term Dalit, whereas the caste legislation will require definitions of each and every caste comprising over a thousand in number and that alone will become an unworkable administrative task. Now in the UK the Indian diaspora has had so many inter-caste marriages – each and every extended family would have had inter-caste and inter-faith marriages - thus caste legislation will become another source of family breakdowns as people at their most vulnerable will take recourse to this legislation as to add to their now legislatively driven differences. The mainstream Indian (Hindu Sikh Jain) communities see the caste legislation as an attack on their familial way of life. However Dalit as a group of castes and thus as an ethnicity not caste cannot split families. While for any discrimination case, Dalit as an ethnic group will be covered in law under ethnicity as being part of the protected characteristics of race legislation of the Race Relations Act 1976. That protection exists under case law as ruled by the Judges in the Tirkey v Chandhok case.

Lord Harries, who is a well respected liberal Christian Reverend, would do well to withdraw his Caste Legislation clause - one of his basis cited for this legislation was that Dalits number 400,000 in this country, whilst the more accurate figure is 40,000 max. Legislation cannot be imposed by fabricating evidence, thus that clause inserted mischievously as part of the ‘Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Act’ – not even directly in the Equality Act where according to the Law Practising Judges ‘Caste groups as Ethnicity’ is already covered for discrimination – is now shown to be an excess to the existing laws, and can only bring harm to a cohesive society and so for the sake of an on-going successful integration of the ethnic minority communities the Lord Harries’ caste legislation clause ought now to be repealed.

Page 70 Report 2017_Layout 1 26/04/2017 15:10 Page 71

Integration & Minorities Report 2017

Notes

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

Page 71 Report 2017_Layout 1 26/04/2017 15:10 Page 72

Integration & Minorities Report 2017 www.emfoundation.org.uk

ETHNIC MINORITY FOUNDATION Boardman House 64 Broadway London E15 1NT T: 020 8432 0601