UNITED KINGDOM PRESENTS REPORTS TO COMMITTEE ON ELIMINATION OF RACIAL DISCRIMINATION

Committee on the Elimination
of Racial Discrimination
63rd session
7 August 2003





The Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination has concluded its review of the sixteenth and seventeenth periodic reports of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland on how that country implements the provisions of the International Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Racial Discrimination.

Introducing the reports, Bruce Gill, Head of the Race Equality Unit in the Home Office of the United Kingdom and Head of the delegation, said the European Race Directive had been implemented recently by the United Kingdom, with the net effect of enhancing existing legislation and improving the access of individuals to justice. This comprehensive legal framework, together with work on community cohesion, had raised expectations for significant and rapid improvement in race equality, particularly across the public sector. The United Kingdom also remained strongly committed to providing a safe haven to refugees under the Geneva Convention. Further, work had been done to encourage community cohesion and the integration of migrants.

Committee Experts, including Raghavan Vasudevan Pillai, the country rapporteur for the reports of the United Kingdom, raised a series of questions including the need to address the issue of incitement to racial hatred; antagonism towards asylum seekers and misleading information thereon; discrimination against Muslims in the wake of the events of 11 September 2001 and other forms of religious discrimination; the political and legal obstacles to inclusion of the International Convention in national legislation; human rights issues linked to anti-terrorism measures; why and how discrimination was explicitly authorized by law; what was terrorism and who was a terrorist, for example was he a person resisting foreign occupation; and the non-derogable nature of various human rights as stipulated in international human rights instruments, and United Kingdom restrictions to the contrary.

The Committee will issue its observations and recommendations towards the end of its session, which concludes on 22 August. In preliminary remarks, Mr. Pillai said there were three dimensions to the dialogue; the first was on the reconciliation with regard to the diverse positions on articles two and four; the second was with regard to the information provided on the report by the delegation in response to questions; and the third was on certain aspects that had not been touched upon. He thanked the delegation for their answers, and looked forward to the continuation of the dialogue in the future.

In concluding remarks from the delegation, Mr. Gill said he hoped the initial presentation and the answers provided had proved useful, and had provided a picture of the situation of ethnic minorities and their disadvantaged state, as well as work that was being done to reverse these disadvantages.

Taking part in the debate were Committee Experts Luis Valencia Rodriguez, Mohamed Aly Thiam, Morten Kjaerum, Régis de Gouttes, Ion Dionescu (Chairman speaking as Committee Expert), Kurt Herndl, Marc Bossuyt, Chengyuan Tang, Agha Shahi, Jose A. Lindgren Alves, Patricia Nozipho January-Bardill, Mario Jorge Yutzis, Nourredine Amir, and Mahmoud Aboul-Nasr.

Members of the United Kingdom delegation included Henry Steel, Head of Overseas Territories Delegation, Foreign and Commonwealth Office; David J. Robilliard, Head of External and Constitutional Affairs, States of Guernsey; Yasmin Hussein, Head of Equality Policy Unit, Welsh Assembly; Mike Entwistle, International Relations and Policy Officer, States of Jersey; Paul Smart, Head of Race Equality Team, Development Department, Scottish Executive; Dr Gerry Mulligan, Head of Equality and Social Need, Office of the First Minister and Deputy First Minister; Jon Callister, Deputy Chief Secretary, Chief Secretary’s Office, Isle of Man Government; Jonathan Duke-Evans, Head of Social Policy Unit, Immigration and Nationality Directorate, Home Office; Ian Naysmith, Head of International Section, Race Equality Unit, Home Office; Frederic J. Raffray, Advocate in Guernsey Law Officers’ Chambers; Mark Pillans, Press Officer, Home Office; Amadu Bah, International Section, Race Equality Unit, Home Office; David Riley, Human Rights Policy, Foreign and Commonwealth Office; Giles Cutler, Human Rights Policy, Foreign and Commonwealth Office; Ms Williams Roberts, Chair, British Virgin Islands Human Rights Reporting Coordination Committee; Paul Bentall, Second Secretary, Human Rights; and Bob Last, Human Rights Attaché.

As one of the 169 States parties to the International Convention, the United Kingdom must present periodic reports to the Committee on efforts to implement the provisions of the treaty.

When the Committee reconvenes on Thursday, 7 August at 3 p.m., it will consider the fifth periodic report of the Czech Republic (CERD/C/419/Add.1).


Reports of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

The sixteenth and seventeenth reports, contained in one document (CERD/C/430/Add.3)) describe progress in the field of human rights and in particular in the fight against racial discrimination. It details the situation in the country, as well as responses to concerns and recommendations in the Committee’s concluding observations on the United Kingdom’s fifteenth periodic report. It further details the situation in the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands, as well as in the Overseas Territories, including Anguilla, Bermuda, the British Virgin Islands, the Cayman Islands, the Falkland Islands, Gibraltar, Montserrat, Pitcairn, St Helena, and the Turks and Caicos Islands.

The reports state that the Government of the United Kingdom is firmly committed to the elimination of all forms of racism and to the development of policies that address racial discrimination, intolerance and violence. The Government’s aim is the construction of cohesive communities in which every individual, of whatever racial or ethnic origin, is able to fulfill his or her potential through the enjoyment of equal rights, opportunities and responsibilities. The United Kingdom has a comprehensive body of legislation to combat racial discrimination, which is summarized in the report and includes recent improvements to that legislation.

Taken together, the legislative changes and policy initiatives summarized in the report constitute the most radical shake-up of race equality issues in the last 25 years. They provide a base on which the Government will develop its plans to promote racial equality further. A performance management regime will underscore these further plans, and provide a mechanism by which progress will be judged and areas of concern identified.

Introduction of Reports

BRUCE GILL, Head of the Race Equality Unit in the Home Office of the United Kingdom, said the United Kingdom strongly believed that the reporting obligation under the International Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Racial Discrimination was an important part of efforts to fight racism and racial discrimination. First, it provided an opportunity to have an audit of the United Kingdom’s performance in tackling racism from an outside body, and secondly, it provided an opportunity to take a step back and assess how the United Kingdom was performing in the fight against racial discrimination. Last, but not least, it provided a focus for a dialogue with NGOs on these issues.

The most recent development reported was that the European Race Directive had been implemented by the United Kingdom. This Directive aimed to establish a common minimum standard for combating race discrimination across the European Union. Changes to legislation had been important, with the net effect of enhancing existing legislation and improving the access of individuals to justice. This comprehensive legal framework, together with work on community cohesion, had raised expectations for significant and rapid improvement in race equality, particularly across the public sector.

The United Kingdom had also taken up on the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination’s recommendation to develop an inter-departmental strategy on race equality. The United Kingdom also remained strongly committed to providing a safe haven to refugees, under the Geneva Convention. Further, work had been done to encourage community cohesion and the integration of migrants.

In the three home countries of the United Kingdom with devolved administrations, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, many of the key issues affecting daily lives of the people were devolved to the local Parliaments or Assemblies. Devolved government in Northern Ireland was currently in suspension pending the outcome of political talks. In Scotland, there had been significant advances in promoting equality. The National Assembly of Wales had the duty to mainstream equality of opportunity in all its business and functions. Government in Northern Ireland was committed to a strategic approach to equality legislation. In addition, the Crown Dependencies of Jersey, Guernsey and the Isle of Man were taking forward a range of legislative and other measures aimed at eliminating racial discrimination.

The United Kingdom Government was also continuing to consider how a National Action Plan Against Racism might add value to interdepartmental strategies against racism. A non-governmental organization Human Rights Forum had also been established which would, among other things, monitor compliance with United Nations Human Rights Conventions.

HENRY STEEL, Head of Overseas Territories Delegation, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, said that in each of the Overseas Territories there had been a process of wide public consultation, and in those cases where there had not been a human rights chapter in the Constitution it had now been agreed that there should be and that it should include a specific prohibition of racial and other discrimination and the necessary enforcement machinery to make that effective. All the other territories were looking at their existing provisions in order to see if they could be improved and made more embracing and effective.

Discussion

Raghavan Vasudevan Pillai, the Committee Expert who served as country rapporteur for the reports of United Kingdom, said the reports constituted a detailed response of high quality to the observations and recommendations made by the Committee. They gave details of many wide-ranging initiatives which were very positive. The State party should be congratulated for its responsiveness to the Committee.

There had been a continuing dialogue, he said, with the State Party on the non-inclusion of the full substance of the International Convention within the domestic legal order. The present report re-iterated the State Party’s position on this topic, and he encouraged the Government of the United Kingdom to re-examine the issue. However, the United Kingdom’s domestic law prohibiting the dissemination of racist ideas was tried and trusted, and struck a balance between maintaining the right to freedom of speech, and protecting individuals from violence and hatred. Still, there was a growing need to address the issue of incitement to racial hatred more stringently, since antagonism towards asylum seekers had helped sustain a surge in support for a particular political party.

There was a need to take a fresh look at the existing legal provisions and administration mechanisms for dealing with incitement to racial discrimination. Ethnic minority unemployment was more than double that of comparable white groups, and minority households were more likely to live in deprived areas than were white households. Further, the promotion of racial equality, he said, was yet to be translated into sustained mainstream practice by health authorities. However, the establishment of the National Asylum Support Service had been a very important step in providing support to eligible destitute asylum seekers, and in ensuring that they were able to access necessary services, but there still remained several areas for concern.

The report contained much on measures to enable the enjoyment of civil and political rights by ethnic minorities, and the State Party was to be congratulated for a number of initiatives, particularly involving training and sensitization of public officials. It was pertinent to point out, he said, that civil society organizations felt the present report did not substantially address the issue of institutional racism within the police and other public institutions. Another area of concern was the disproportionately high percentage of ethnic minorities in prison establishments.

The State Party was to be complimented, he said, for the seriousness with which it was addressing issues of institutional racism. However, there was no central body to assist with the enforcement of the Human Rights Act, in force since 2000. A Human Rights Commission with comprehensive jurisdiction to review complaints of human rights violations would be a valuable addition to the remedies currently available in the United Kingdom.

Other members of the Committee also raised questions. They asked questions referring to such topics as, among other things, deaths in places of detention, particularly the deaths of ethnic minorities; campaigns against racial discrimination in schools; discrimination against Muslims in the wake of the events of 11 September 2001 and other forms of religious discrimination; racist forms of information in the media; the political and legal obstacles to inclusion of the International Convention in national legislation; the fact that asylum seekers could not legally work and the reasons for this; how Section 19 D of the Race Relations Amendment Act 2000 which made it lawful for immigration officers to discriminate on the basis of nationality or ethnic origin where this was authorised by a minister was implemented in practice; what was being done to encourage ethnic minorities in the police force; issues related to the Roma community; gender inequalities and in particular the situation of women of Asian origin; human rights issues linked to anti-terrorism measures; why and how discrimination was explicitly authorized by law; and the new Race Relations Regulations 2003, from which the notion of colour had been removed for no apparent good reason.

The Committee also paid tribute to the way in which the report had been formulated, namely in concert with NGOs, and to its frank and honest nature.

Responding, the Head of the Delegation said the many questions put by members of the Committee showed the constructive nature of the dialogue. Other members of the delegation then responded to the questions. The core of legislation on racial discrimination was “The Race Relations Act, as amended”, and the proposition that there was no comprehensive legislation on racial discrimination was not accepted. Racially and religiously aggravated offences and incitement to racial hatred were covered in separate legislation, for the good reason that these were subject to the criminal law rather than the civil law, and therefore should be part of separate legislation.

With regard to asylum seekers, new opportunities were being created for those who wished to apply to work in the United Kingdom. However, the asylum process still lacked flexibility, and work was being done to remedy this, not just to speed up the process of asylum and to make it more reliable, but also to provide a better service. People who were refused asylum could still appeal, but in some cases they would only be able to do so once they had returned to their original countries. Controls were indeed in place to prevent illegal immigration at several places, including airports, with the aim of preventing those who had no valid reason to enter the United Kingdom, and might be intent on making unfounded applications for asylum.

With regard to the Gypsies and Roma, case law in England had ruled that Roma and Irish Travellers were protected by race equality legislation. There was a shared commitment across the United Kingdom to ensure that Gypsies/Roma/Travellers had equal access to all public services. Research was underway to establish the experience of homelessness among Gypsies/Travellers, and other minority ethnic communities, and to identify the need for any specific set of responses. Through this and other initiatives, a far more thorough and detailed understanding of the needs of the United Kingdom’s Gypsy/Traveller communities was being established, and was being done so in collaboration with the community itself.

With regard to the rise in Islamophobic harassment and attacks in the United Kingdom and the request for new legislation outlawing racial discrimination in England, Wales, and Scotland, the Head of the delegation reported that considerable development had taken place in this area in the last few years. The EU race directive had been imported into domestic law and the employment directive outlawing discrimination in employment, in areas of age, religion or belief and sexual orientation was being imported into domestic legislation. A test was now included as to whether either racial or religious motivation or any aggravating evidence of racial hostility was used in connection with an offence. This was in direct response to the aftermath of 11 September and concerns by the Muslim community with regard to increased harassment and violence. The faith needs of black and minority ethnic Muslim groups had increasingly been acknowledged and addressed, particularly in the health sector, local government and national Government.

The United Kingdom believed that its understanding with regard to article 4 was shared by other States Parties, but noted that it was not shared by members of the Committee, whose opinion was treated with respect, and there was regret for the divergence of opinion. This was the legal position, but in practice the different positions were not that far apart. The United Kingdom did not assert and had never asserted that the right to freedom of expression, opinion, association and assembly were absolute and could not be abridged. On the contrary, it had in fact curtailed the exercise of these rights when this was a threat to public order or an incitement to racial violence. What was involved was a balancing exercise and in performing this the United Kingdom had full regard for its obligations to the International Convention, as well as for its obligations under human rights.

There was no reduction in protection for colour and nationality due to the implementation of the European Union Race Directive. Implementation had extended protection in relation to race and ethnic origin. Further amendment to the Race Relations legislation to extend the Directive-led amendments to the grounds of colour and nationality was being considered.

With regard to the Anti-Terrorism Crime and Security Act, the Government had stated that prosecution was the preferred option in relation to a person suspected of involvement in terrorism. Where prosecution was not an option, the Act allowed the United Kingdom to detain, pending eventual deportation for a finite amount of time. Terrorism represented a grave and fundamental threat to the national security of the United Kingdom and the safety of its citizens, and this was a threat that needed to be addressed without compromising the integrity of the United Kingdom’s international obligations. The United Kingdom had chosen to address this threat through a specific immigration power to meet the threat posed by international terrorism of the sort which led to the events of 11 September. The United Kingdom would not wait for a catastrophe to occur before taking the necessary precautions, and there was a continuous review of the process based on the current assessment of the threat to the United Kingdom.

Racist incidents could only be dealt with effectively if there was consistent and effective multi-agency cooperation. With regard to deaths in custody, the Government had for some time recognized the shortcomings of the current police complaints system, and had expressed sympathy to the principles of independent investigations into serious complaints, and a new system for the handling of complaints against the police had been established. However, there was no obvious common link between minority ethnic deaths, which had occurred in a wide range of circumstances, nor were the numbers involved large enough to draw any significant statistical conclusions. Similarly, although the rate of self-inflicted deaths in prisons was substantially higher than suicide rate in the community, it was not greater than that of people under supervision in the country.

The Government recognized the benefits to society of an independent voice providing advice and challenges on human rights issues. For that reason it was currently considering proposals for a single equality body for England and Wales, which would cover discrimination on the grounds of race, gender, disability, religion/belief, age, and sexual orientation. The precise extent of the human rights function was currently under consideration, and the Government aimed to be in a position to decide on the future of the single equality body, and any associated human rights function by September 2003. In Scotland, good progress had been made towards establishing an independent Human Rights Commission, one of which already existed in Northern Ireland. Independent organizations with responsibility for overseeing human rights issues were either already in place or plans for their establishment were already well advanced.

The Committee then asked more questions on various topics, including the definition of asylum seekers and whether this was an economic or political definition; what was terrorism and who was a terrorist, for example was he a person resisting foreign occupation; the non-derogable nature of various human rights as stipulated in international human rights instruments, and United Kingdom restrictions to the contrary; how the issue of terrorism was being dealt with; the implementation of article 4 of the International Convention and of the European Union Directive on Racism; the advantages of incorporating the International Convention in legislation, particularly in the context of caste-based discrimination; the differentiation between race and colour in the legislation of the United Kingdom and the EU Directive; the condition of the Gypsy/Traveller population; and the performance of the criminal justice system.

The Committee also appreciated the frank answers given by the delegation, which had not sought to avoid or duck any questions, noting that the discussion had been satisfactory. There was also approbation for the United Kingdom’s prohibition of religious discrimination. The Committee also expressed regret that the United Kingdom Government could not agree with its interpretation of article 4 of the International Convention.

Responding, the delegation said the definition of an asylum seeker being used was that an asylum seeker was a person who had made a claim of the Government that he or she was in need of protection as per the 1951 Agreement. Economic migrants could in certain cases enter the United Kingdom work force, and the Government recognised and welcomed those who were prepared to make a contribution on this level to the United Kingdom, on condition that they used the appropriate application channels. United Kingdom domestic legislation forbade discrimination on grounds of colour, race, nationality, or ethnic origin. Whilst the Directive enhanced existing legislation, it only did so on the basis of race and ethnic origin, not on that of colour and nationality.

Preliminary Remarks

The final conclusions and recommendations of the Committee will be released before the end of the Committee’s session on 22 August. In preliminary remarks, Mr. PILLAI said the delegation had given a great deal of information in response to the comments, queries and questions raised by the submission of the report. There were three dimensions to the dialogue; the first was on the reconciliation with regard to the diverse positions on articles two and four, and it was the endeavour of the Committee to convince the State party to accept its interpretation; the second was with regard to the information provided on the report by the delegation in response to questions; and the third was on certain aspects that had not been touched upon, including the need for affirmative action. He thanked the delegation for their answers, and looked forward to the continuation of the dialogue in the future.

The Chairman, in conclusion, said work on reducing racial discrimination in the United Kingdom was progressing, but since there would always be problems, much remained to be done. There was a balance now, but there was a need to be sure and to be prepared to have a better balance tomorrow, and it was expected that the United Kingdom would continue to work towards a better balance, and to provide more answers in the next report.

Concluding Remarks by Delegation

In concluding remarks, the Head of the delegation thanked the Committee for the constructive dialogue, and hoped the initial presentation and the answers provided had proved useful, and had provided a picture of the situation of ethnic minorities and their disadvantaged state, as well as work that was being done in reversing these disadvantages. Concluding observations were anticipated positively. Appearing before the Committee had been both challenging and rewarding. Further thanks were due to the members of the Committee for their work.



* *** *