Social Cohesion and Community during Periods of Change
Lord Archbishop of York Excerpts(2 weeks, 2 days ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Archbishop of York
That this House takes note of the importance of social cohesion and strong, supportive community life during periods of change and global uncertainty.
The Archbishop of York
My Lords, on Monday 29 July this year, just before 11.50 am, police officers were called to a property in Southport, where children attending a dance school had been appallingly and ferociously attacked by a man with a knife. Three of the children—Elsie Dot Stancombe, Alice Dasilva Aguiar and Bebe King —died. Many others sustained terrible injuries, and a whole community and many families were devastated and traumatised.
Understandably, horror and anguish convulsed not just Southport but the whole country. Rumours quickly circulated on the internet that the man to blame for this attack was an asylum seeker who had arrived in the UK illegally and was on the MI6 watch-list. This was not true. As a reporter put it a few days later, once lit, the torch paper of disinformation burned quickly. Although this rumour was quickly debunked, in the days that followed, as we know, riots broke out all over our country.
In Rotherham, close to my diocese, a hotel housing migrants was set alight. In France, the Libération newspaper called Britain a “Disunited Kingdom”. What do we make of this? How do we respond? What does it tell us about ourselves? I hope that this debate will be an opportunity to reflect on these things and on our common identity, of which our communities and institutions are such a vital part. I am very grateful to the usual channels for allowing us on these Benches to have this debate and to give this important issue space before your Lordships’ House.
The work needed to build stronger, more supportive and more socially cohesive communities must involve us all. Although the summer’s riots were fuelled by hideous extremist rhetoric, which came from mysterious places online, what happened took place on our streets and in our communities. While there were extremist forces at play, we also need to face the uncomfortable truth that, although the rhetoric was extreme, many of the people involved in the riots were not. We know from the courts that more than half of those charged with offences such as violent disorder came from the country’s most deprived 20% of neighbourhoods. This means places with the worst health outcomes, with lower levels of qualifications, where employment is at its lowest and where the impacts of austerity, the pandemic, a cost of living crisis and rising inflation have hit hardest, intensifying those feelings of being left behind. That was made all the worse by social media’s wildfire of disinformation, and has been fed by years of hard and soft extremist rhetoric.
I recognise and praise the years of important work done by reviews carried out by Dame Sara Khan, the noble Baroness, Lady Casey, and the noble Lord, Lord Walney, as well as the ongoing work being carried out by many organisations, including the Together Coalition, British Future, Belong and many more. On policy, there is much expertise to draw on, and as such, many of the policy elements are known, but the deterioration of public services is a causal factor in the ignition of violence over the summer, and their revitalisation is essential reparative work.
Education, housing availability, employment and the state of the health service have all been further impacted by the cost of living crisis, and the well-being of communities and individuals is closely tied up with them. The housing crisis and unemployment, among other things, as we know, are most pronounced for young people, which is so significant when we consider issues of civic engagement. One in five councils is facing bankruptcy, which is an extraordinary challenge, given that they are such critical local agents for cohesion at a time when all our communities are changing.
The impact of the pandemic on each of these things was unprecedented, and I hope that noble Lords with expertise will explore this further. It gives me no delight to say that amidst all the public service challenges, the aftermath of Covid has put a strain on trust—and trust is critical; it is not an unlimited resource.
Perhaps most important of all is that we are living in an increasingly digitised world. When the pandemic struck, most of our gatherings and meetings went online. That was an important lifeline for us all at the time, but as a result, the changes in how we were already beginning to understand and relate to each other in a digital world accelerated. Now, there is an increasing reliance on AI and automated decision-making, despite a lack of ability to regulate sufficiently the technology we depend on so much. This cannot continue. The rise of misinformation on social media is undermining trust in democracy itself and in the rule of law. The Khan review found that freedom-restricting harassment is on the rise, and while the online world offers us so much, we have serious work to do to mitigate the impacts it will continue to have on our hearts, our relationships and our mental health.
Why should platforms be allowed to continue to call themselves platforms? We are in danger of losing the philosophical debate, for surely, they are public spaces and should be regulated accordingly, especially those where children are likely to go. Of course, I recognise, support and have worked in this House for the things we are seeing in the Online Safety Act, but more is needed.
All these things shape our relationships with one another and with the world around us. According to this year’s Woolf Institute diversity study, one in 10 people in England and Wales do not know anyone well enough in their local area to ask them a favour. We know the names—well, maybe not all of us here, but some of us —of those who live in Coronation Street or Albert Square, but we do not know the names of our own neighbours. This is a tragedy, for the very best of British history is built on neighbourliness, and the loss of what is sometimes called “the economy of favours” is one we should all feel deeply: a culture where we look out for one another, not because we are told to but because it would never occur to us to do differently. But these actions, which build cohesion, flow from values that need to be taught and cherished.
From a Christian point of view, I would therefore dare to add that values are best protected and communicated by beliefs, customs, rituals and practices: the very things that are the lifeblood of faith communities. The soft power, the stuff of social capital that builds communities, is what might be measured by the social fabric index. This takes into account a range of measures, including employment rates and civic infrastructure. As I have already indicated, reports tell us that 23 out of the 27 places that experienced disorder last summer had a well below median social fabric score. We therefore face the challenge of healing and rebuilding. Many expert reports and reviews call on the Government to work on a social cohesion strategy. I look forward to hearing from the Minister about the Government’s thoughts and plans, especially on a cross-departmental national social cohesion strategy, and I welcome the inquiry on community cohesion by the Women and Equalities Committee recently announced in the other place.
Of course, all this is related to the policy areas I have mentioned. Without equitable access to housing, education and healthcare, social cohesion will not happen; nor will we be able to preserve a democracy in which everyone participates. Yet fewer than half of 18 to 24 year-olds exercised their right to vote in the last election, compared to three-quarters of people aged 65 and above.
Across the globe, many other democracies face fragmentation, driven by increasing disillusionment and division. Time series data in the UK shows that trust in government has decreased over the last four decades, alongside continuing low voter turnout and decreasing confidence in political parties and, of course, other institutions, not least the Church. Participation in civic life is therefore essential, and it is clear that if someone does not feel they have a stake in the governance of where they are, they will not engage. I believe that one part of the solution to this is devolution. I am therefore thankful for the work of successive Governments to make this happen.
I recently had a very substantial cooked breakfast—no kippers, unfortunately, but it was a very good breakfast—with the recently elected mayor of the York and North Yorkshire Combined Authority, the first of these new bodies to combine rural and urban communities. What did we speak about? We spoke about values: where they come from, how they are nurtured, what happens when you lose them and how you get them back; and how it is shared values, shared story, shared belonging, and belief in a shared future that create cohesion and well-being across what can so easily seem to be insuperable difference.
These things are often best nurtured at a more local level, where people have a greater stake in the decisions that affect their lives. We need to be clear about this. Difference is a gift. We know from our observation of the natural world that it is biodiversity that creates mutual flourishing and the lack of diversity that can destroy the whole system. Our society is growing in diversity, especially ethnically and religiously, and we must embrace, celebrate and be curious about our differences, not scared of them. We will better understand those differences through governance at the local level, and this could be taken more seriously by government.
Having got this far through much my speech without really mentioning God, let me say again that these values, not least the values around our belonging to one another and the mutual responsibilities that go with it, are rooted in the Jewish and Christian scriptures that have formed so much of our national understanding, including the rule of law and the inherent and equal value of each person under the law.
The opening word of the Lord’s Prayer, which some of us say each time we come to this Chamber, is “our”, not “my”. Everything else follows. I might add that, in the New Testament, Jesus never asks us to love everyone. Loving everyone is sufficiently abstract and therefore relatively easy to do. Jesus asks us to love our neighbour. What that means is to love that very particular person who is sitting next to you—or perhaps in this place I should say opposite you—right now. Any vision of cohesion and well-being that is about the security of self at the expense of neighbour is not only insufficient for flourishing but doomed to miserable failure and economic stagnation, for we belong to one another in all our glorious diversity.
The local parish church and other faith communities provide a presence in every neighbourhood. The particular genius of the parish church and the parish system is that it preserves and communicates meaning, value and belonging in places where people can serve and be served, and discover fresh perspectives on what it is to be human and to be a human community.
In its report published this week, Theos notes that owing to their deep connection to and understanding of place, parish churches were central to the emergency response to the riots. The fruit of their relational work is seen, of course, in other faith communities. With others, the Church of England must continue to build and nurture these connections. This is happening up and down the country. I am inspired by, for instance, the peace walk that took place after the riots in Sunderland, the interfaith friendship that is happening in Smethwick, and the things I am learning from Muslim and Jewish groups that I work with in York.
“Social cohesion” is almost a verb: it is a process—something we work on and must continue to work on—and it requires active participation from us all. I hope experts and those with experience of interfaith work in the Room will be sharing their thoughts in this debate. It is incumbent on us in this place to articulate a vision of what it means to belong to one another, to build social cohesion and to nurture the values that will sustain us. I look forward to listening deeply to the experiences, contributions and examples of others.
Let me be clear: it is not just faith communities that shape this. There are so many community groups and others who give themselves to serving and building community. I am extremely grateful to everyone who has come today, on a Friday, to participate in this debate. I particularly look forward to hearing the maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Sharma, and to draw on his experience of the global factors at work, including climate change. If the generations growing up feel that there is no future for the planet, how on earth will they feel they have a future in their local community?
Finally, with all that has been happening in the Church of England in recent weeks, I felt that I should end on a more sobering note. Unless institutions are safe spaces for children, families and vulnerable adults, the things that we all long for and believe in will not come to pass. It is often said of government that security and safety is the first priority. The recently published Makin review has again revealed shocking failures within the Church of England to safeguard children, and, in this case, vulnerable young adults. I pay tribute to the victims and survivors who came forward to disclose the horrors that they experienced. My heart goes out to them and I apologise for these shameful failings. Moreover, I pledge myself to work purposefully for independent scrutiny of safeguarding in the Church of England and greater operational independence. These are the next steps that we must take, and we have much to learn from others.
I hope that this debate will be an opportunity for all of us to reflect, discuss and explore policy, to offer what we can as representatives of different places and different perspectives, to commit ourselves and to work across this Parliament to build trust and hope and, in so doing, build socially cohesive communities and institutions. I beg to move.
The Archbishop of York
My Lords, I am extremely grateful to everyone who has spoken today for the breadth of perspectives and experiences that we have received. I also thank again those who have made a debate happen on a Friday.
I have a few assurances to make. The noble Lord, Lord Bird, described himself, I think, as an ex-devout Catholic. My dear friend the noble Lord, Lord Cashman, was slightly concerned that he agreed with me so much. It just shows how close he is to the Kingdom of God.
The Archbishop of York
I remind the House, as I think I have said before, that I speak myself as a lapsed atheist, and I say to the noble Lord, Lord Lilley, that, because of that, I consider myself to be a sinner in need of grace. I do not pretend to be anything other and all sinners are welcome, whatever their political party. We stand as equals before God. I know that is how it feels to him, but please let him not think that. Whoever we are, we are welcome in the House of God, and all these other things, including our robes, do not matter.
I thank the noble Earl, Lord Effingham, and I assure him that, although I did not specifically speak of condemning violence, I absolutely condemn all violence, as do all of us on these Benches, and support the rule of law. I hope that was implicit in what I was saying. I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Bellingham, that the Church of England has acted, since the Housing Matters report, to set up a housing association and a housing development agency and I will ask colleagues to write to him with details of how that piece of work, which the Bishop of Chelmsford is leading on, is developing.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Singh, as ever, for his moving words. They showed the deep connection between peoples of faith. I am reminded that Jesus nearly always made the hero of some of his most famous stories someone of another faith—we will come to the Good Samaritan in a moment. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Bottomley, that we are inherently social. That is a really important starting point that immediately binds us together, one with another.
I say to the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, that the Church of England is the local church. What matters is the Church on the ground, serving our communities day in, day out, which is also why I have to pay tribute to all volunteers, mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, including church volunteers. I for one am glad that church volunteers now do safeguarding training, because it makes the Church a safer place. I did it myself two weeks ago: I regularly do safeguarding training and it is a good development in the life of the Church.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Mann, that we need to pay attention to power: it is an important thing for all of us in positions of responsibility. The Church of England needs to be a humbler Church. I recognise that I stand here knowing that our Church has been humbled by these failings and we are determined to learn from them. I therefore thank the noble Baroness, Lady Berridge, for her probing questions, which she could not ask us directly, but I heard them and I want her to know that. I also want her to know that there are many bishops asking these probing questions, not just one bishop. Proposals that will be coming to the General Synod of the Church of England in February are our response to the IICSA proposals and other reports, which we have been and are working on, towards independence.
I thank the Minister for his positive responses to the points that have been raised in this debate and for his undefended approach, which is something that we all need on these issues, where we know we all have so much to do and where we can all so easily fall short.
I affirm and support the Church Commissioners for the work they are doing, which is not about trying to go back 200 years but about building a better future. If we face up to our mistakes in the past, be it mistakes in safeguarding or, in that case, the horrors and evils of slavery, and build a better future then we all benefit because we build a better and more just society.
I say to my dear friend, the noble Lord, Lord Robathan, that it sounds like we need another cup of tea, brother. We do that from time to time; it is a bit battering but, as I have been saying to people recently when they ask, “How are you, Archbishop?”, I am battered but not yet fried. Still, we are humbled, and there are many things that he has put his finger on that the Church of England needs to address. Let us have another cup of tea, because there is so much investment going on in the Church of England on the ground and we need to address that. However, it was not the Church that closed churches in the pandemic; that was the Prime Minister.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Willetts, for what he said about intergenerational community. I remind him and the House that the faith community is probably the only place left in our society where generations meet.
Lastly, I have to rise to the bait that the noble Lord, Lord Lilley, dangled before me early on about the good Samaritan. He asked himself a different version of the very question that the lawyer asked Jesus, “Who is my neighbour?”, though the noble Lord put it like this: “Is there a hierarchy of obligations?” I dare to suggest that he got his answer from his own Benches, not least from the powerful, important and moving speech by the noble Lord, Lord Sharma. We are in a climate emergency, and that teaches us that our well-being and survival are tied up with that of our neighbours across the whole world.
The noble Baroness, Lady Helic, made a moving speech—these were not her words, but they are what I heard—about building coalitions of good will across difference, and I say to the noble Lord, Lord Leigh of Hurley, that a lot of good work is going on at the local level with people of different faiths working together. Andy Burnham has initiated such work in Greater Manchester and I am involved in trying to get that started in York and North Yorkshire, while my right reverend friend the Bishop of Bristol spoke about the One City initiative in Bristol. All these things are based on the idea that we belong to one another.
In fact, as a Christian—sorry to go all theological, but the noble Lord, Lord Lilley, did ask—we believe that God is a community of persons. God is Father, Son and Holy Spirit, and we who are made in the image of God are at our best when we build communities that give and receive a reciprocity of the love that we see in God and which we try to mirror here on earth.
So is there a hierarchy of obligations? When Jesus was asked, “Who is my neighbour?”, he did not actually answer that question. He asked another one—“Who is neighbour to you?”—and told a story, one that we all love because it makes fun of people in power. He said there was a priest and there was a lawyer, but they did not do what common decency and the law require. They failed. As I say, I speak here as someone who knows our Church has failed.
So, who will be the hero of the story? The people listening, who know this story, think it will make fun of the lawyer and the priest; the hero will be the ordinary man in the street—the good Jew. But Jesus turns it on its head. The hero is not who you expect it to be. The hero is the stranger. The hero is the foreigner. The hero is the heretic. Worse than that, the hero is also wealthy, just to rub salt into the wounds.
That is the person who ministers to you. So, is there a hierarchy of obligations? I would put it differently. There is the human community, of which I am a part. I have obligations and responsibilities to my neighbour, whoever they are, and I want to build a society—this, for me, is a fundamentally spiritual and Christian point—where I can love my neighbour and my neighbour can love and serve me. I welcome all in trying to build such a society.
I will finish with an illustration of the power of the good Samaritan, who is a neighbour to you when you are in the ditch. Let us imagine Donald Trump in a ditch, and that it is an illegal Mexican refugee who gives him mouth-to-mouth resuscitation. That is the power of the story, and that is the challenge before us about loving and serving each other. I welcome the conversation and the debate. I will be praying that we can rise to that challenge and build a more socially cohesive world.
Covid-19: Economy
Lord Archbishop of York Excerpts(4 years, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Lord Bishop of Chelmsford
My Lords, I want to follow the noble Lord, Lord Harries, in speaking about vision. The word “economy” comes from two Greek words: “oikos”, meaning household, and “nomos”, meaning law. Its literal meaning is “the law of the household”. A good economy is meant to be like a well-run household, where things are shared fairly and where everyone is catered for according to their needs. In a family, it is unthinkable that some are fed while others go hungry. Moreover, each member gladly makes the sacrifices necessary to contribute to the whole. These ideas of a common good, belonging to each other and mutual responsibility were a unifying force in the post-war consensus that created the welfare state. They had their roots in Christian social teaching.
As has been said, our last crisis did not lead to such a vision. After the financial crash 12 years ago, the banks were bailed out with public money, but it was paid for by reducing public services. Now, correctly in my view, the Government are paying for citizens to be furloughed and for increased health measures, but we do not have the unifying vision which will help us rebuild our nation, nor the will to pay for it proportionately.
What can we learn from this crisis? First, we need something more than a safety net. A safety net is not a vision; it is a last resort. We need a vision for a society where everyone is raised up and where everyone recognises their responsibility to the whole, as in a household.
Covid-19 is not indiscriminate. It disproportionately affects the BAME community and the poor, it reduces opportunities for the young and it highlights deepening inequalities in our society. Wealthy people can work from home; poor people cannot. But Covid-19 is nothing compared with the environmental challenge the world faces. Simply getting the economy up and running in the next year might help balance the books, but it will be a disaster for the next generation. We need an economic reset that is based around the common good and the well-being of the planet: anything less will not be economical.
Social Housing
Lord Archbishop of York Excerpts(5 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Lord Bishop of Chelmsford
As Bishop of Chelmsford, I am also proud to be the Bishop of Becontree, Harlow and Basildon, three of the nation’s boldest attempts by policymakers in the last century to address the housing needs of London and the south-east. When Becontree was built in the 1920s, it was Europe’s largest public housing development. The Government were then building homes fit for heroes after the First World War, and London County Council had a bold vision for 27,000 new homes and the infrastructure that went with them, which we do not see in housing estates today. There are many being built across Essex. It is great to move in, provided that you do not own a car—there is nowhere to park it—and provided that nobody who ever visits you has a car, because there is nowhere for them either.
The era of large housing estates has gone, but so has the vision to build proper communities. I therefore very enthusiastically support the Motion from the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, and the need to increase our commitment to provide social housing. This debate is very timely. We all see the reason for this in the terrible rise in homelessness. I pay tribute to the work done by churches and charities up and down this country to support those who are homeless.
Until fairly recently, most of us would grow up, live, work and raise a family in the same place, but we now live networked lives. We therefore end up gravitating towards living beside people who look and think as we do. But the danger is that a networked, aspirational society becomes a disintegrated society, a society with rising levels of aspiration but correspondingly higher levels of discontentment and unhappiness. Let me put it plainly: there is something wrong and we store up great trouble for ourselves when people cannot even aspire to live in the communities where they grew up.
Creating more diverse but integrated communities is challenging but it provides a better context for human flourishing, so please forgive me for making a theological point: you cannot be yourself on your own. The only way we can fully be what we are meant to be is in community with each other. The answer is plain and it is, of course, our common expectation: builders and developers must ensure that a significant proportion of the dwellings they build is affordable social housing.
However, we know that this is not happening. Let me point out one reason that we could address. Using what are known as viability assessments, developers can avoid or reduce the proportion of dwellings set aside for social or affordable housing, arguing that such housing undermines the overall profitability of the development. I am not suggesting that builders develop sites without profit but we could look at this—it could be more transparent—and then we could build not only housing developments but communities.
Housing: Availability and Affordability
Lord Archbishop of York Excerpts(7 years, 2 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Lord Bishop of Chelmsford
My Lords, I too thank the noble Lord, Lord Smith of Leigh, for securing this debate and the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, for his comments. I would like to make a slightly different point about housing as a spiritual issue. It is not just about meeting physical needs but about providing the stability and security without which no one can grow and flourish. I think we all agree, therefore, that there is little doubt that the scarcity of affordable housing is one of the most urgent crises facing our nation, for it affects our cohesion, our well-being and our prosperity, and the growing homelessness on our streets is the outward sign of an inward and debilitating spiritual malaise.
We heard about figures in Manchester. The housing charity, Crisis, estimates that on any one night in Britain at the moment, 8,000 people are sleeping rough. There are 39,000 households living in hostels and 60,000 people surfing from sofa to sofa. That is before we have considered the thousands of people who want to get on the housing ladder but cannot afford it. I am involved with a number of homeless charities in Essex and east London where I serve, and see the sad and exhausting consequences of this day after day.
The cost of a home—and I underline the word “home”—whether bought or rented, is at the mercy of market forces. London is in danger of becoming a city where teachers, nurses, social workers and even Christian ministers can no longer afford to live, and where ordinary and even relatively well-off middle-class families, the young and the disadvantaged are forced out by escalating prices. Yes, we need a strategic plan.
Jesus famously said that:
“In my Father’s house there are many homes”.
Today, we need a progressive and imaginative housing policy that has many types of homes within it—a much greater diversity. We have heard, and I am sure we will continue to hear in the course of this debate, many statistics. I will not read out a load more, but I want to make it clear that while we applaud what has been done and what is being done, more needs to be done, and it needs to be more joined up.
The challenge in rural areas is particularly acute. The effect of the lack of appropriate housing in rural areas is starting to show in terms of the lack of public services. Primary schools that two decades ago had enough pupils to provide high-quality education are now struggling. The recent change in the funding formula for schools will, I fear, see many more close, and it is housing policies that will enable families with children to return to the heart of rural communities. But it is not only schools that suffer. This lack of social diversity, with predominantly older people in villages and hamlets and long-term families priced out of communities where they would have expected to live in the past, means that a wide range of public services—health, social care, transport and so forth—are under threat.
Again, I see this at first hand in rural north Essex and in many Essex council towns. But as well as rural, the diocese where I serve is urban. In Walthamstow, average house prices have risen by nearly a third in the last couple of years. Even small houses in Walthamstow can now cost £500,000. Historically, this was a community for working-class people, but no longer, and we know that this is repeated all over London. Younger people with families who bought shared equity or other forms of starter homes are unable to move into larger properties. But housing developers favour larger houses with larger prices. I therefore find, as I go about, that I hear stories of children of different genders having to share a bedroom long beyond the ideal age—which in other policies such as the bedroom tax the Government have set at 10—and children and parents having to sleep in the sitting room in order create enough sleeping space. We are in danger of creating ghettos where high-income and low-income households live separately. In London and in the countryside that is getting acute. So we not only need more building, but variety and diversity of tenure and in the right place.
In rural areas, it used to be required that the development of smaller plots included social housing. However, that requirement has been removed and it is unclear from recent Parliamentary Answers to Written Questions from the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans whether any monitoring of this policy’s impact has been made.
Finally, I want to say something about the difference between a house and a home, a housing estate and a community. A house becomes a home, and a housing estate a community, when it provides for not just a physical need but contributes to the diversity of provision for individuals and families through a wider network of the schools, healthcare, other services, recreation—of course, I will also say—churches, mosques, temples and synagogues that make a community work.
The Church, with our roots in every community, is able and willing to help; already we are, in our own small way, pioneering a number of imaginative solutions. In Gloucester, a vicarage redevelopment is providing a new vicarage and a load of other social housing as well. In east London, our diocese is planning to redevelop a number of church sites where the church buildings were either badly built or badly designed. We reckon we can provide 600 affordable housing units, as well as worship space and community facilities.
We need imagination and conviction as well as investment. It is not just about building houses, but building homes; not just about new estates, but flourishing communities; not just about putting a roof over someone’s head, but a foundation beneath their feet.
Race Disparity Audit
Lord Archbishop of York Excerpts(7 years, 2 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Young of Cookham
I agree with my noble friend. One positive fact that emerged from this audit was that 85% of ethnic minority people believe that they are British and identify very strongly with their community. That is a very positive sign. My noble friend is right that in many of these indicators, the Indian community does well; but, by contrast, they reveal that the Bangladeshi community does not do nearly so well on many of the same indicators. We need to understand the reasons, address them and see whether we can bring those members of the ethnic minorities who do not achieve quite as well as the Indian community in the respect that my noble friend mentioned up to the same standard.
The Lord Bishop of Chelmsford
My Lords, although, let me be clear, the Church of England has nothing to teach anyone else on this subject—our record is not a good one—in the diocese of Chelmsford, where I serve, which includes the east London boroughs, which have some of the most diverse communities in Europe, we have found that of course there is racism and xenophobia but there is also what has been explained to me as unconscious bias. It is not quite the same as racism; it is those things which prevent us from seeing each other as clearly as we need to. Both in the Church of England generally and in the diocese where I serve, we have done a lot of training over the past couple of years to help people to see their own unconscious bias towards people, and this is already bearing fruit in the church context with black and global majority people coming forward into positions. I wondered whether the Government had looked at that both for us and in wider society to try to move the debate on beyond the binary thing of, “Somebody is a racist or they are not”.
Lord Young of Cookham
I welcome the work which the right reverend Prelate has been doing in east London, in his diocese. If there is a template there, a model of working which can have wider application, of course the Government would be interested. One thing that I discovered from going on to the website this morning, which I had not appreciated before, is that black people are disproportionately more likely to engage in voluntary work than any other group. If one digs into the audit, there is a lot of good news there about ethnic minorities, which I hope we can now put in a wider domain. If we can build on the good work that the Church has done in east London and apply it to some other areas where there are big ethnic minority populations, the Government would be delighted.