Race Equality
The next item of business is a debate on motion S1M-3423, in the name of Margaret Curran, on race equality, and two amendments to the motion. I observe that we are six minutes late in starting and warn members that that will affect the way in which I regulate time in the course of the debate.
I am pleased to be speaking in this debate. This has been a significant week for both the Scottish Executive and the Scottish Parliament. I express my recognition of the courtesy that was expressed by the leaders of the other parties in their responses to the briefing on the subject and their warm words about the campaign. We share a common stance in our condemnation of racism and discrimination. I hope that we also share a common vision of a Scotland where we celebrate the diversity of our people and welcome the contribution that they and those who might come to Scotland from abroad can make to our economic prosperity and social fabric.
This motion is about the kind of Scotland that I believe we all want: a confident, successful country that is proud of its diversity, free of injustice and in which all can thrive regardless of who they are and where they live. This motion is about eradicating racism in today's Scotland as an essential prerequisite for securing that goal. Racism is an issue for all of us, whatever our party politics. If we care about Scotland and the people in it—all of them—this debate should be a positive affirmation of that.
This week, the Executive launched its anti-racism campaign in which we all sign up for a Scotland where we respect and value the diversity of our communities, harness and foster the skills and talents of all, welcome new blood and different perspectives and state clearly and loudly that there is no place for racism.
Regrettably, the day-to-day human experiences of exclusion, prejudice and antagonism deny those advantages to far too many people across the country. That discrimination can involve individual actions or institutional discrimination. Sometimes the discrimination is conscious but often it is unwitting. However it manifests itself, we need to act to create a change.
I do not believe that anyone in the chamber or in the country wants to live in a Scotland where a family or person's potential is determined not by what they have to offer but by their postcode, skin colour, ethnicity, religion, age, sex, sexual orientation or disability.
While welcoming the campaign, I seek clarification on two issues. I note that the minister stated that she wants to tackle religious discrimination. What distinction is made in the strategy between racism and sectarianism? Does she recognise that the concept of sectarianism contains a clear anti-Irish racism?
This campaign is specifically an anti-racism campaign. Mr Quinan will know that the Executive has set up a working group to examine the issue of sectarianism—I believe that Roseanna Cunningham is involved in that group. We do not necessarily think that the issue of sectarianism always relates to the issues of racism. We are focusing on race discrimination in the campaign. That does not imply that we do not take sectarianism seriously; we recognise that we have to take it seriously. We think that the appropriate way to consider issues to do with sectarianism that members have raised in the chamber is through the working group.
On anti-Irish racism, part of the research that underlay the nature of the campaign that we have proposed and implemented considered the nature of race discrimination in Scotland. I have to say that a touch of anti-English racism was picked up in the evidence that we received. We take any prejudicial judgment on another's nation seriously, but the overwhelming evidence that we received showed that colour was the key determinant of race discrimination. We decided to prioritise that, which is why the adverts are constructed as they are.
I hope that we can get maximum unity around the campaign that has been launched. However, does the minister agree that politicians in particular have to be very careful about the language that they employ in politics and in public pronouncements? It is regrettable that the Home Secretary has used language that, quite frankly, is part of another era and which Thatcher used to deploy when she was stirring up racial tension. Does the minister agree that politicians have to be extremely cautious about the language that they use and that the Home Secretary should bear that in mind?
Politicians should always be cautious about their actions and their language, and I do not hesitate to agree with that. I do not want to get into issues of personalities, because that would divert from the key messages of our campaign. I am responsible for how the Scottish Executive will conduct itself in these matters and I am explaining today how it intends to do that.
I was just about to talk about how deprivation, poverty and exclusion affect people's experiences. Poorer communities are often misrepresented in popular discussions of these issues. I have substantial experience of our most excluded communities being the first to extend the hand of friendship to others. We need to begin to tackle the myths and assumptions that abound about people from different ethnic backgrounds and how those myths and assumptions are perpetuated.
I am sure that we are all keen to condemn other political parties that seek to exploit poverty and deprivation as a means of stirring up racist hatred. I should just mention that the only political criticism that we have received in our campaign so far has been from the British National Party. I am sure that I speak on behalf of everybody in the chamber when I say that that will not intimidate us or frighten us off our message.
The Parliament will reassert its condemnation of racism in Scotland. We know what the issues are. We know that in Scotland someone has more chance of being unemployed if they are a member of an ethnic minority community. We know that too many people from ethnic minority communities are under-represented in most occupations and continue to experience racism at work. We know that cases of institutional racism and racial harassment are still far too prevalent. The number of racist incidents that are reported to the police continues to rise to around 3,000 a year. That is the reality for our communities, but how do people in Scotland generally view the issues?
Our campaign has been forged in the light of research into behaviour and attitudes towards race and racism in Scotland. The results have been both heartening and depressing. People in Scotland say that they want to live in a country that is welcoming and friendly, where people all have equal opportunity to prosper and succeed. However, at the same time, they reveal that entrenched attitudes and prejudices cut across that. The research reveals that people recognise that racism is a problem in contemporary Scotland, but that they see it as something for which others are responsible. The reality is that racism is a problem at all levels of society and that it cuts across all geographical areas.
The campaign is therefore founded on hard facts, solid research and a need to demonstrate leadership. We should not forget that part of the genesis for the campaign lies in tragic events, such as the deaths of Firsat Dag in Sighthill and Surjit Singh Chhokar.
The Lawrence steering group, the race equality advisory forum and the Equal Opportunities Committee all called for an awareness-raising campaign in response to those and other incidents. The Executive is responding to that call. The Executive campaign aims to prompt debate, to challenge ingrained attitudes, and to get people to think more constructively about the sort of Scotland that they want to live in and the attitudes and behaviours that get in the way of that.
The campaign rests on the key strapline: "One Scotland. Many Cultures."
I hope that members will see much of that strapline in the coming weeks. Scotland is multi-ethnic. We are the richer and the stronger for that. Our future prosperity should also benefit from the growing and attracting of talent from diverse communities in Scotland and beyond. We need to be a country that is confident with its diversity, a place that celebrates what we have in common, and a country that thrives on difference.
The key strapline is supported by three other slogans. The first is that there is "No place for racism" in Scotland. Racist behaviour is unacceptable in modern Scotland. Racist behaviour is not just about physical violence in housing schemes in big cities; it is about our language and our attitudes, and it is about how we live from Oban to Dumfries.
The second slogan is that Scotland may be "A small country" but "Not a country of small minds". A successful Scotland of the 21st century will need ever more innovation, interchange, energy and dynamism. Small-minded prejudice and narrowness of vision will hold us back from that goal.
The third slogan is "Don't let Scotland down." If we do not tackle racism, we let ourselves and Scotland down. Everyone can help to create a climate where racism is deemed unacceptable.
Our high-profile campaign is not just a cosmetic exercise; it is underpinned by concerted and practical action by the Executive. That action includes funding for racial equality work through the education service; projects that are aimed at supporting school staff to tackle racism; working with the police to develop a code of practice for racist incidents; working with the health service through the fair for all programme; funding a range of additional security measures for places of work; and working with the voluntary sector to ensure that we properly support minority ethnic organisations.
However, tackling racism and promoting race equality are not just the preserve of the Executive. I thank the Commission for Racial Equality for its engagement with the campaign from the outset and for its contribution to its development. I also pay tribute to myriad organisations and individuals for their untiring commitment and invaluable work, often in very challenging circumstances. They are the underpinning of this campaign and, indeed, the great unsung heroes of much work on behalf of the Executive.
I have a list of other activities that the Executive is undertaking; perhaps they will be spoken about during the debate.
Racism is unacceptable. It makes no sense socially, politically, morally or economically. Let us assert categorically that we are a multi-ethnic society—one Scotland with many cultures. We will respect our diversity. That is the message that we hope to get across in this campaign. We have to build a smart, successful Scotland. We can take our place with pride in the 21st century if we tackle racism in Scotland.
I move,
That the Parliament recognises the importance of tackling racism, prejudice and inequality as integral to promoting an inclusive, confident and prosperous Scotland that retains and attracts talent from different cultures and backgrounds and welcomes the anti-racism and race equality work being done by the Executive and other national and local bodies.
The SNP amendment is in the name of Kenny Gibson. I welcome the opportunity to have this debate today. Most of us recognise that one of the biggest enemies of a successful campaign to tackle racism would be complacency about the extent of racism in our society and in our communities across Scotland.
Research figures that were released this week indicated that some 25 per cent of Scots considered themselves to be racist. The headline news was along the lines of, "How can there be so many people in Scotland who consider themselves to be racist?" The danger with such a result is that some people will think that the figure suggests that too many people are racists, while others, sad to say, will think that the figure suggests that not many people at all are racist. Some would argue that the majority of people in our society are racist in some way, irrespective of their ethnic background. The challenge to us, in tackling racism, is to ensure that those who harbour racist views are challenged as to why they harbour such views.
I welcome the Executive's campaign and its decision to bring it forward in the way that it has. The Minister for Social Justice will be aware that John Swinney wrote to party leaders back in April on this issue, looking for a united campaign against those who would seek to create racism in our communities.
Given the recent events involving parties such as the BNP—including its attack on my parliamentary colleague Roseanna Cunningham—it is essential that all democratically elected members of the Parliament should be united in campaigning against such organisations and abhorrent views. I particularly welcome the fact that the First Minister has been so positive in acknowledging the need for a united campaign to tackle racism. I am sure that the minister is looking forward to chairing her working party, which will have cross-party representation.
Although I welcome the campaign, I have some concerns. If we are to tackle racism effectively, it is essential that we address it at a grass-roots level. That message must be taken into every home, classroom, workplace and community group throughout Scotland. There is a danger that, if we have an apparently media-led campaign, it will be perceived as a top-down approach. It is essential that local organisations that are actively involved with local groups in local communities—such as the race equality councils—are part of the implementation of the campaign. The minister may wish to intervene on that point. It is essential that such local organisations feel as though they are partners in delivering the campaign and that they are provided with the resources to do so effectively.
I will clarify the situation, as I had to speed up at one point in my speech. I assure members that the campaign was developed in close partnership with a number of organisations. We take the point that a top-down, one-off approach would have only limited impact. We intend to work closely in partnership with organisations. I can defend my position: we give substantial funding to a range of organisations to ensure that anti-racism work is conducted in Scotland. I am sure that we will talk about that as the debate goes on.
I welcome the minister's response. However, only last week, I received representations from members of race equality councils, who expressed concern that they had not been provided with any additional resources to deal with a possible increase in direct inquiries. A number of race equality councils throughout Scotland are having funding problems just now because of the changes that may occur as a result of the CRE's review. We must ensure that they have at their disposal the resources to ensure that the increased inquiries that they may receive as a result of the campaign are tackled effectively.
It is also important that the campaign should not be regarded as a one-off. It must be a sustainable campaign. It must continue. It must continue to challenge racism. To think that a one-off campaign would be the magic wand that could eradicate racism in our society would be wrong. We know how deep-rooted it is. The minister mentioned the 3,000 incidents that are reported to the police every year. We also know from research about the racism that exists in institutions in Scotland. For example, the average Asian person is probably paid around 15 per cent less in some types of jobs in Scotland as a result of their ethnic background. That institutional racism is unacceptable.
Tommy Sheridan has already raised my next point. Last week, I shared a platform with Doreen Lawrence, the mother of Stephen Lawrence, at a race awareness conference in Grangemouth, which was set up by central Scotland race equality council. One of the clear messages that came across from the organisations that were present at the conference was that we need to have political leadership in implementing any campaign to eradicate racism. They were concerned that every politician should show that political leadership, irrespective of whether they are at Westminster or in the Scottish Parliament. The organisations noted their concern about David Blunkett's comments, because such comments do not help those within our communities who suffer from racism. Those to whom I spoke were disappointed that the Scottish Executive did not show political leadership in Scotland by distancing itself from David Blunkett's comments. I hope that the minister will reflect on that at some point and consider distancing the Executive from those comments.
Scotland is a rich society because of its diversity, and our diversity is something that we as a society should celebrate. I close with a quotation from last Friday's conference:
"In our difference lies our strength; in our unity lies our future."
I move amendment S1M-3423.2, to insert at end:
"and recognises the importance of fully resourcing these bodies in order to sustain their efforts over the long term."
Despite the fact that I have lodged an amendment to the motion, I hope that the minister will accept that our intent is to encourage those organisations and individuals who are working to tackle racism, prejudice and inequality to ensure that Scotland has no place for racism and to empower people from whatever country or culture to pursue and partake of every opportunity that our nation offers.
One only has to look at the statistics to contemplate the scale of the project that the Executive and others have taken on. In 1999, 1.6 per cent of the Scottish population were from ethnic minority groups, more than a third of whom came from Pakistani or Bangladeshi communities. Crucially, 57 per cent of the ethnic minority population were aged under 30, compared with only 38 per cent of the indigenous population. If anything, that encourages me.
I think of my own experience at school. When I attended Radleigh School, I was exposed to a variety of children from a host of backgrounds and cultures. For me, that was a broadening experience, which has shaped my attitudes in adult life. My progress to a senior secondary school was a bit of a cultural let-down, however, as I found myself in a homogeneous group without the advantages that I had come to know. Such was the benefit to me that I sought just such a culturally and racially mixed school for my own children, and I see in their attitudes and in the mix of their friends that they too have developed attitudes of which anyone would be proud.
It is undoubtedly through our youngsters that attitudes will change, and I hope that that will reverse the increase in the number of racist incidents which, as the minister and Michael Matheson have said, is currently more than 3,000 a year. It is timeous that, as Scottish public bodies move towards compliance with the Race Relations (Amendment) Act 2000 on 30 November, the Executive has highlighted the issue. We are happy to support its endeavour. The minister will be aware of my support for previous awareness-raising campaigns, even in the face of criticism when the Executive's numbers were found wanting—but I do not want to end on a sour note. I am concerned, however, that the Executive is spending £1 million of taxpayers' money on an advertising campaign, and that we have no way of measuring its likely success. Will the Executive measure success by a rise in the number of reported incidents, as more people become aware, or are we seeking a marked decrease in the number of reported incidents? Perhaps the minister will tell us how the effectiveness—
Will the member take an intervention on that point?
Surely.
I was not clear about this: is the member criticising—
I was asking the minister a question, but—
Well, I am asking Lyndsay McIntosh a question. Is she criticising the allocation of £1 million and the effort that is going into the advertising campaign?
We are not criticising it at all; we are merely questioning how we are to measure the effectiveness of the campaign. That is my question to the minister, and perhaps she would like to respond.
Lyndsay McIntosh raises a significant point about how we measure changes in racist attitude and behaviour. There are many ways to do that. One is to monitor increases or decreases in the number of racist incidents, but there are many other ways of doing it. We decided that measuring attitudinal change should be done over the long term, although we note that attitudes are not easy to measure. That does not mean to say that we should not engage in the awareness-raising campaign. The fact that any such campaign is hard and that a long period and a variety of instruments are required does not mean that we should back away from the need for leadership in tackling racism in Scotland.
The minister has dealt with the issue that I was about to raise.
As I am a member of the Equal Opportunities Committee, it would be remiss of me not to mention our concerns about institutional racism and the unfinished business of the committee's proposed meeting with the Chhokar family. Unfortunately the continuing ill health of Mr Chhokar has prevented the committee from fulfilling its offer to meet the family to hear its views, following the report of Dr Raj Jandoo. I sincerely hope that Mr Chhokar's health will improve and that we can honour our pledge to meet him.
In the light of the minister's comments about measuring success, I will not move my amendment. I commit my full support to the effective success of the "One Scotland. Many Cultures." campaign.
I associate myself with the speeches that colleagues have made in introducing the debate. I do not want to repeat their comments, which related largely to attitudes. From professional experience, I know that attitudes can be changed. The drunk driving campaign that took place several years ago produced a significant change in attitudes, with the assistance of techniques such as television advertising.
Today's debate about race equality is important and challenging. From their different perspectives and with their different philosophies, all the political groups that are represented in the chamber are strongly committed to fighting racism. I do not know what happened to the word "racialism", which was used in my youth—over the years it seems to have mutated to become "racism".
Liberalism approaches the issue on the level of the individual. We believe that everyone should have equal opportunity and be treated according to their merits, without regard to the colour of their skin, religious beliefs, gender, sexual orientation or other aspects of their personality. Racism is offensive because it belittles individual worth. It strikes in a very corrosive way at the heart of the liberal society to which the Parliament is committed.
In recent years it has been recognised that discrimination must be tackled across institutions. Margaret Curran mentioned the 3,000 racist incidents that are reported each year. That is a worryingly high figure, but it is as yet unclear whether it reflects growing intolerance or a growing willingness on the part of those who are affected to report such incidents.
I want to move on from the question of attitude to the issue of leadership. It is open to public authorities, ministers and the Parliament to lead by example. I would like to highlight three issues. First, I will not say anything about the incidents that took place in Blackhill, but in Castlemilk, which recently received a large number of refugees, the infrastructure of community groups, support mechanisms and the like was extremely successful in producing an integrated response to the refugee issue. It is a classic example of how such matters should be approached.
Secondly, we need in public services to recognise and to help to meet different cultural and personal needs. Those include the dietary needs of patients in hospital, the need for women-only swimming facilities at Govanhill, and the need to set aside rooms in secondary schools so that Muslim students can conduct their religious devotions suitably and privately.
The third issue that I want to highlight is the empowering importance of English, particularly—but not exclusively—for women. Professionally, I have seen a number of instances of marital break-up in which problems of unemployment, social isolation in communities that disapprove of divorce and lack of access to necessary services have been given a whole new dimension by the fact that the person concerned did not speak English. Access to English is important not only in family break-ups, but throughout the range of social situations. Command of English is both a facility and a confidence-building mechanism. It gives people greater access to society—mother and toddler groups, community groups and so on—and to education and employment.
Lack of knowledge of English is not a diminishing problem, partly because of the practice of arranged marriages with non-English speaking partners from people's countries of origin. It is right and proper—as the First Minister might say—that there should be recognition of and support for minority languages, but English is the lingua franca of the country. We should make every effort to ensure that people can learn it and that they are strongly encouraged to do so. That might mean providing facilities not only in colleges, but in the community. Such facilities should take account of child care and transport needs, and should run with the fabric of ethnic minority communities.
Using public transport is a horror for people who do not speak English—it has its moments even for those who do. It is not uncommon, for example, for the wife of a shopkeeper to be left with young children at home, fairly isolated from other community members, unable to speak English and without the car, which is away on business with her husband. Going to the doctor, participating in school parents nights and getting to English language lessons present major problems in such situations. We must be careful to put facilities in place throughout the country—not just in population centres such as Glasgow and Edinburgh.
There is no single answer to tackling racial inequality and prejudice. Many of us—including me, as an Englishman by birth—have come to Scotland for a plethora of reasons and choices, whether personal, parental, employment-related or economic. It is in all our interests that our country is inclusive, confident and prosperous. Scotland needs the diverse talents and experiences of all our citizens. I support the motion.
That speech was superbly timed.
I am happy to support the Executive's motion. I am grateful that the minister mentioned the Equal Opportunities Committee, because, along with the organisations that have supported us for the past three and a half years, the committee has worked hard to ensure that race equality issues are high on the agenda. We have done everything that we can to promote valuing diversity.
As the minister said, one recommendation of the Equal Opportunities Committee's civic participation event on race relations was that the Executive mount a high-profile campaign to challenge all forms of racism with a zero-tolerance approach. The campaign cannot be described as having a zero-tolerance approach and criticism has come from some quarters.
I was grateful to receive a briefing about the campaign. We must give the campaign a chance, because it is not an end in itself. It is part of an armoury, which includes the important Race Relations (Amendment) Act 2000, that we can use to tackle racial discrimination.
The message that we are trying to get over in the campaign will be useful. It will not stop people who are knowingly and maliciously racist acting abusively. Those people must be subject to the full force of the law. However, the campaign will stop people who do not intend to be racist and who do not realise that they are acting in a racist way from continuing with hurtful and damaging behaviour that allows true racists to justify their behaviour. I welcome the campaign.
We in the chamber need to set an example. I was interested in the Tory amendment and glad that Lyndsay McIntosh did not move it. That amendment says:
"and realises that real and lasting reform must start by giving ethnic minorities the freedom of choice to pursue their own chosen avenues."
What does that mean? I do not know. The amendment is mince.
The minister said that the campaign has had no political criticism other than from the National Front and the British National Party, but Phil Gallie criticised the campaign yesterday on the Lesley Riddoch show. I hoped that he would be in the chamber to give his views, which are always the antithesis of mine and of those of anybody else who is committed to equal opportunities. On the Lesley Riddoch show yesterday, Phil Gallie said that he uses the word "Chinkie" and that he does not mind his kids or anybody else using it. He did not think that the people who own the Chinese restaurant that he visits regularly would mind his using that word.
I did not hear Phil Gallie talking to Lesley Riddoch, which is probably just as well. I know of people from ethnic minority communities—I am thinking of a family who have a business where I stay—who revel in references to the "Paki shop". They wear that as a badge of pride. I take the member's point, but some people consider that an innocent remark and we ought to challenge that.
I doubt very much whether anybody revels in being called a Paki. They might pretend that they did for the sake of peace and quiet and they might not protest, but such words are used as terms of abuse. How can an Asian child be expected to distinguish between the words "go home Paki" scrawled on a wall and their family being referred to as Pakis? That is the whole point of the campaign. Lyndsay McIntosh seems to be missing the point. We are trying to teach people who are being hurtful and damaging by being unintentionally racist not to continue with such behaviour.
The political parties must get their acts together. Phil Gallie said that he did not believe that institutional racism existed, that the £1 million campaign was a waste of money and a publicity stunt and that people do not mind being referred to as Pakis and Chinkies. Every political party in the Parliament should commit itself to obtaining race awareness training for all its members, to ensure that members of the Parliament can lead by example.
The recently published report into racism in Scotland claimed that one in every four Scots admits to being racist. That is a hard fact for us to accept, but we must accept it if we hope ever to make progress towards ridding our society of racism. For many years, we in Scotland deluded ourselves by believing that racism was not a problem here.
Kate Maclean mentioned the need for political parties to get their acts together. For many years, the Scottish National Party has had a policy whereby anyone found guilty of racist remarks or behaviour is expelled. I would like the other parties to make a similar commitment.
Over the years, many people have made the journey to Scotland. Some have come to make new lives for themselves and their families, some have been forced to flee their homelands and many have come because of poverty, hardship or violence. They have chosen to settle here and to make Scotland their home. Many members of the Parliament are first or second-generation Scots.
Many people have enriched our country and have brought a diversity to Scotland that makes it the country that it is. Scotland is a warm and welcoming country and we must not allow a minority to blight our society with racism. All Scotland can come together on the issue. I welcome the campaign to stamp out racism in all forms, whether intentional or unintentional.
Racism takes many forms, including taunts in the playground, job discrimination, physical attacks and the use of derogatory words such as Chinkie and Paki. It is the responsibility of all members, at all times, to refuse to accept racism and to attempt to put a stop to it.
The number of racist incidents that are reported to the police continues to rise. At present, there are more than 3,000 such incidents a year. Many members of ethnic minority communities feel frustrated when no action is taken after they have reported incidents, which leads many members of those communities not to report such incidents at all.
Victims of racist crime must be supported and, more important, must feel that they are supported and that the authorities take their experiences seriously. The Parliament has been shocked by the Chhokar case and by the experience of the Stephen Lawrence case. We have a responsibility to learn from those experiences to ensure that, in three or four years' time, we do not receive further reports about how badly people have been treated.
There must be monitoring of the relevant authorities to maintain correct procedures. Support for victims must be implemented. Measures such as the use of interpreters in trials and feedback from the court system are an absolute prerequisite. There must be action and support at grass-roots level. Michael Matheson referred to the need to give organisations on the ground the resources and the support that they need to do their jobs.
We support initiatives in our schools to educate our youngsters and to inform them that racism is not to be tolerated. We must encourage our children to learn to appreciate the diversity of our Scottish nation. We have a responsibility to ensure through positive and sustained action that all Scotland's citizens—those who are here and those who have yet to come—feel that they are part of Scotland.
Racism has no place in Scotland. The eradication of racism from our land could be one of the Parliament's greatest achievements.
I take the opportunity to welcome the Executive's anti-racism campaign. Scotland is truly a multi-ethnic community, but we sometimes forget how Scotland is affected by certain aspects of that.
We have a long tradition of being a multi-ethnic community. Much of what we are going through today reflects the experiences of the Italians who immigrated to this country 100 years ago. At that time, there were problems in many of our seaside towns. There was a degree of misunderstanding of the new race that was entering Scotland and which was becoming integrated culturally with the Scots who lived in those areas. We ought to learn from the lessons of the past. The descendants of that community who are with us today and who contribute at all levels of Scottish society have a great deal to tell us.
During the course of the debate, we have seen all the usual posturing. Some members have a tendency to feel that they are less racist than others, and have told us so during the course of the debate. However, I would go so far as to say that a great range of views have something to contribute. I would like to expand on one or two issues that I am concerned have not been included in the debate so far. Lloyd Quinan mentioned sectarianism and racism towards the Irish community and people of Irish descent. That question was ably answered by the minister. However, I would like to hear the minister reflect on the position of Scotland's Gypsy Traveller community. Perhaps more than any of our other traditional communities, Gypsy Travellers are treated as if they were immigrants.
During an investigation that the Rural Development Committee carried out over a year ago, the question was raised whether racism exists in our far-flung rural communities. From personal experience, my answer is yes. However, identifying racism in such communities is difficult for two reasons. First, the immigrant communities in many rural parts of Scotland are very small indeed, often consisting of a single family. Secondly, families that are so isolated can find themselves far from the kind of back-up services that are necessary. I am interested to hear from the minister how some of the £1 million might be made available to those who find themselves a long way from the support that they require.
I listened carefully to what Mr Johnstone said about people of Irish descent, Gypsy Travellers and people who live in rural Scotland. Does he include those who belong to an indigenous linguistic and cultural minority in that short list?
You do not have much longer, Mr Johnstone.
Given Scotland's tradition in higher and further education, it is important that we support those who, having come to this country from abroad, become part of our ethnic immigrant community when they arrive here. It is essential that we defend their rights within the educational establishment.
I support what Robert Brown said about the importance of English. It is absolutely essential that support and encouragement be given to those who are immigrant to this country, so that they become able to speak the language. There is no greater isolation than that of those who cannot speak the language that is spoken around them. I also support Robert Brown's call for provision to be made for the observance of religious beliefs.
Having said all that, I will take the hint that the Presiding Officer is giving me and sit down.
I welcome this opportunity to place on record my support for a culturally diverse Scotland in which racism and prejudice have no place.
Like the Executive, I recognise that there is still a great deal to be done to create such a society in Scotland. No one in the chamber would disagree with Margaret Curran's assertion, which she made when she launched the Executive's welcome £1 million campaign to tackle racism in Scotland, that
"Scotland has some way to go before it is free of prejudice and discrimination."
If that needed to be brought home to me, it was brought home this week by the arrival of one odious little e-mail from the British National Party. It confirmed my view that tackling racism and prejudice remains central to every democrat's objective of the creation of a more egalitarian Scotland.
In the 1970s, when I became involved with socialist politics, people of all parties and none subscribed to a strategy that no platform should be provided for racists or fascists. I agreed with that approach then and still do. However, the advent of information technology has meant that the latter-day spawn of the National Front—the BNP—can peddle its poisonous message at the flick of a switch. What is even more worrying is that, although its message is as unpalatable as ever, the organisation has grown more cunning, professional and insidious. It talks about the "invasion of our country" and a plan
"to undermine the social fabric and culture of Scotland's homogeneous population".
As a result, although the product is packaged more professionally, it remains fundamentally racist, fascist and evil no matter how it is dressed up. Our task as democratic politicians is to say clearly that diversity is to be celebrated, not feared; that racist behaviour such as physical violence, use of racist language and other attitudes is unacceptable; and that promoting anti-racism is everyone's responsibility at all times and in all places.
Scottish Labour is clear that refugees who settle in Scotland bring not a threat but skills, energy and commitment, all of which carry the promise of future economic benefit. I know that the Executive will seek to support programmes that enable refugees to contribute to Scotland's future prosperity.
In my Glasgow Anniesland constituency, the real work of building a tolerant, inclusive Scotland goes on. The reality is not the caricature that is painted by tiny racist cells. For example, in Drumchapel High School, the real work of co-operation and integration is being undertaken. In a recent letter, the head teacher—Mr Wilson Blakey—was able to provide me with an accurate portrait of what is happening in his community comprehensive. He said:
"I work, as you know, in Drumchapel High School in your constituency where 10% of the pupils are asylum seeker children. We are not swamped. Their impact on the school has been tremendous. For the most part, their behaviour is impeccable. Their attendance is almost 100% … They have been, almost without exception, an enrichment to the school. Their impact in raising the consciousness of Drumchapel children has been a valuable educational and social experience for them and many friendships have been formed."
That is the reality of what is happening in Scotland.
Before I conclude, I must mention Anniesland College of Further Education, where more than 80 different courses have been run in the past two years to provide appropriate levels of support for refugees, from those who have little or no English to those who come to our country with medical qualifications. Those courses have provided all students with much improved ability to contribute to the life and work of our nation. I want to put on record my admiration for the college staff involved, including Linda McTavish and Brian Hughes.
We cannot be complacent. We face real difficulties and must meet daunting challenges. Nevertheless, through the hard work and commitment of the majority of Scotland's citizens, we can create a tolerant, vibrant Scotland—a Scotland of many cultures.
My colleague Robert Brown focused on the Liberal Democrat philosophy of treating people as individuals. My Liberal Democrat card contains a quotation from a preamble to our constitution, which says:
"The Scottish Liberal Democrats exist to build and safeguard a fair, free and open society, in which we seek to balance the fundamental values of liberty, equality and community and in which no-one shall be enslaved by poverty, ignorance or conformity."
The focus on tackling ignorance is of particular importance to me. Racism is the result of the worst kind of ignorance: the failure to treat people as people, regardless of the colour of their skin or their racial characteristics. Prejudice and ignorance exist in Scottish society—[Interruption.] I welcome Phil Gallie to the chamber. There is no doubt that prejudice and ignorance exist in Scottish society.
Although I am not complacent about the 25 per cent of respondents to the survey who admit to some kind of racial prejudice, the fact that 75 per cent feel that they are not prejudiced in any way is a hopeful sign. It is up to all of us in the chamber, not just the Executive, to take the lead in combating ignorance.
Racism, prejudice and inequality occur because of ignorance and it is up to everyone to help in the process of removing them. The language that we use in our everyday speech and in the chamber is important. The equality agenda must be exactly that, and there must be no room for inequality in the language that we use when we are talking about racism and in all other spheres, whether it be racial or gender-based inequality.
I know that the Deputy Minister for Social Justice is well aware of my views on equality in gender issues and subjects such as domestic violence. I am disappointed that Hugh Henry is not here—he was here at the beginning of the debate—because he continued to use the same sort of exclusive rather than inclusive language when he referred to domestic violence at today's question time.
Kate Maclean talked about race awareness training for MSPs. I would like ministers to be given sex equality training sessions.
Perhaps you could stick with the subject of the debate, Mr Rumbles.
The debate is about the importance of tackling racism, prejudice and inequality and that is what I am focusing on.
I hope that the Scottish Executive is as committed to ending racial and gender inequality and all forms of ignorance on which inequality is based, so that we can all live in a society that values the rich diversity that we have, and where no one is
"enslaved by poverty, ignorance and conformity."
I was about to talk about the Conservatives' amendment. I am glad that Lyndsay McIntosh did not move her amendment because it was negative and not very helpful. Most of the contributions in the debate have been quite consensual and I am therefore pleased that the amendment to the motion has not been moved.
We should be aware that homo sapiens is not a rational animal; he is a rationalising animal. Therein lies the challenge for each and every one of us.
I say to Alex Johnstone that I doubt whether we have all reformed our actions, thinking and instinctive responses. That applies to each and every one of us in the chamber.
On this topic, as in so much else, the community will judge us politicians not by what we think, nor by what we do, but by what they think we do. It is important that we communicate on that basis. Challenging, changing and consolidating new attitudes is not a quick fix. We must start by recognising that we are all part of the problem. Similarly, we must all be part of the solution.
Over recent months, I have asked parliamentary questions that aimed to identify how employment in the public service is doing. The proportion of ethnic minority employees in the Scottish Parliament is less than half of the proportion of ethnic minorities in the wider community. In the Scottish Prison Service it is less than one third, and its recent employment has not shown any particular improvement. We clearly have much to do throughout the public service.
I do not say that in a carping, critical way. I say it simply to illustrate the challenge that we face. We must make our public services—as we must make our wider community—more welcoming so that more people from a wider range of backgrounds feel that they can apply for jobs. In our discrimination policies we must ensure that those people succeed and join in employment. That is how we join society. That describes some of the challenges.
The media is a major part of the Executive's campaign. However, the media is also potentially part of the problem. We might spend £1 million on a campaign, only to have it overturned by 1,000 foolish words written by a single careless journalist working for a sloppy editor. The editorial choices that are made by some in the media are distinctly unhelpful in promoting inclusion and equality, and negating racial discrimination.
I ask ministers to publish the success criteria for the campaign, which I hope will be successful, as we all do. How will the success of the campaign be judged? That is particularly difficult, because inevitably it is a long-term campaign. If ministers feel that publishing the criteria might compromise the integrity of the campaign because the results will be discussed at an early stage, I invite them to give the criteria in confidence to the working group that is being set up. I would be content with that.
I am glad that the Tories have withdrawn their amendment, because my commitment to equality is absolute, and the words "but" and "tokenism" were unfortunate proposed changes to the motion.
I close by telling members about the first law of genetics, which states that the more highly optimised an organism is for one environment, the more it will be damaged by a change in that environment. There is diversity of opinion in this Parliament. That is of value. I tell Robert Brown that there is diversity of language outside. That is of value. There is diversity of origin in our society. One Scotland needs many cultures.
It is disturbing to look round this chamber and see an absence of black and ethnic minority members. The picture was different about a year ago when the Equal Opportunities Committee event, to which Kate Maclean referred, was held in the chamber.
I congratulate the Executive on the launch of its campaign to tackle racism in Scotland through raising public awareness. It is essential that we recognise the importance of the campaign, in particular because it might serve as one of the ways in which to challenge people's preconceptions. Given some of the comments that have been made this afternoon, that is important.
In a country where around only 1.3 per cent of the population of 5 million comprises people from minority ethnic backgrounds, and where many people lack personal experience of different cultures, it is all too easy for misunderstandings and preconceptions to prevail. On the issue of race, we all have a duty—a personal accountability and responsibility—to examine our own preconceptions and assumptions.
Margaret Curran has stated:
"Through this advertising campaign we are stating clearly and loudly that there is no place for racism in Scotland."
Of course, that message is welcome, but it is also important that rhetoric is turned into reality. We should use the spotlight that the Scottish Executive's campaign provides to convert such positive statements and pledges into action that will lead to a change in Scottish society.
We all know that children are not born racist. By actively reinforcing anti-racism messages throughout children's education, and by promoting understanding of the potentially profound consequences of prejudice, we can move closer to eradicating racism in 21st century Scotland. Education plays a fundamental role in the prevention of racism, as does the provision of other key services. Given that such services are the responsibility of local authorities, we must ensure that local authorities are fully involved in the development and implementation of Scotland's anti-racist policies. It is disturbing to reflect on the fact that around only 0.5 per cent of our councillors in Scotland are from ethnic minorities.
We must also accept that the Executive's awareness-raising campaign, race equality policies and new duties will lead to more demands being made of local authorities. For example, they will have to set targets and monitor; provide training in race awareness, not only for teachers, but for housing and social work staff; provide translating and interpreting services; and mainstream and promote race equality. It is therefore important that local authorities are provided with the necessary resources and adequate funding, as well as with continually revised and updated guidelines, to ensure that there is an impact at grass-roots level and genuinely inclusive engagement between the wider community and excluded groups.
We need people to examine their own positions and prejudices. They should imagine what it must be like to come from a minority ethnic background, to be ridiculed, to be spat on, to be physically attacked, to have one's self-confidence damaged, to be denied the chance to achieve one's potential and, as is the case in some instances, to be born in Scotland and speak with a Scottish accent but be treated like a second-class citizen.
We have heard examples of that kind of treatment throughout this week since the campaign was launched. Perhaps it is difficult for some people to put themselves in another person's shoes, but everyone must at some time have had the experience of feeling lonely, picked on and isolated. That is part of life. However, to have those feelings and to experience negative attitudes from those around you day in and day out is something that few people can imagine if they have not experienced it.
We must do more than pay lip service to the aims of the campaign. Through political action, we must turn our condemnation of racism into reality. The message is clear: racism in any form is unacceptable in a modern, 21st century Scotland. I associate myself with the Executive motion.
I also associate myself with the Executive motion. Its heart is in the right place and it has put its money where its mouth is. Unfortunately, there is not quite enough money to overturn the steady drip of venom and distortion that is fed, not only through badly edited newspaper articles, but through nightly television news. For example, if one listens closely to how news of the Sangatte camp is reported, the reporter makes the assumption that it is a bad thing that refugees should have come via that camp to this country. No attempt is made to analyse who came and why they came. No attempt is made to analyse why they would want to stay here, but I will return to that later.
The Executive's £1 million will not be enough to change attitudes in the way that everyone in the chamber wants. What Michael Matheson said—and what Bill Butler said eloquently—must be listened to: it is local organisations that can use the minister's advertising campaign to kick-start a change in attitudes. Those organisations must be funded and listened to. If anyone wants to evaluate the £1 million—incidentally, that is less than well-known comedians get for advertising the lotto—ask the people who organise the neighbourhood anti-racist groups. They will tell you whether the kick start has achieved its objective.
I understand that it is difficult for the Scottish Executive to disown the Home Secretary. Behind the scenes, however, he should be advised that his choice of language has done harm. The Executive is trying to create positively the sort of atmosphere in which people who are refugees in this country for a short while, and for whom English is not a first language, will not have their confidence swept away because of reported tales of what the Home Secretary has said. We all know that and it does us no good to ignore it. When someone of good standing, such as Robert Brown, says the sort of thing that David Blunkett was trying to say about the use of English in the home and the access that it can give a refugee or immigrant to the services that we have to offer, and not one of us thinks that there is anything wrong with that, then it must be that there is something wrong with David Blunkett, because when he talks about the use of English in the home of an immigrant family, we automatically assume that he has in mind the immigrant family whose children swamped schools in England. As Bill Butler pointed out, there is no such phenomenon in Scotland. We should not shy away from saying such things if they are the truth.
I wanted to talk about the global market in people and their skills moving all over the place. Most Government ministers who are concerned with enterprise and the economy might use that language too. However, when the Home Secretary says that he has no sympathy with young people in their 20s who do not get back home and rebuild their country and their families, it undermines everything we say about a global economy and an inclusive society. I am a nationalist: I am supposed to want Scotland only for the Scots. I want Scotland for everybody who wants to come and live here. Therefore, I welcome the Executive's initiative to try to get rid of racism, but I warn ministers—they will need a lot more than £1 million.
"One Scotland. Many Cultures." That is a good campaign and I commend the Executive on it. As a slogan, it is preferable to the term "mongrel nation", which is a bit risqué, but as the Opposition has had a hard enough time with slogans this week, I will not rub it in.
The debate is a challenge to all members. I am sure that many members grew up believing, somewhat complacently, that Scotland was more tolerant than other parts of this island. In recent days, through some of the evidence that the campaign has brought to the fore, that has been shown not to be the case.
One of the joys of not being in ministerial office is that I have time to read in the summer. This summer I read a newly published book called "Being Scottish", which is an anthology of 80 Scots talking about their experience and what it means to be Scottish. A depressing feature of the book is the entries of black Scots and members of ethnic minority communities as they record their experiences of intolerance in the past 10, 20, 30, 40 or more years. The intolerance that is highlighted in the recent statistics is not a new phenomenon; it is simply something that people are beginning to talk about more openly.
The issue was brought home to me this year. I first spent time abroad in Canada in 1979, when I was in my teens. I went there believing that Scotland was a great place to live. One of the first friends that I made there was a Pakistani, who was the same age as me at the time—he is the same age as me today—and who had been born in Pakistan, but who had come to Scotland in 1967. His family lived here for three years, but they found life in Glasgow so difficult that they emigrated to Canada. That shattered my perception of Glasgow as a tolerant and warm city.
In January this year, that friend came back to Scotland to visit. I went with him to the primary school that he had attended in 1967. We were able to walk into the primary school, although I thought that there were meant to be laws to prevent that. On a Saturday morning in that school, which is in a mixed part of Glasgow, five or six different classes in English as a second language were going on. That brought home to me something that we have heard in the debate—from the Executive and the Opposition—that Government, politics and political leadership matter. The Executive has taken some important steps. When I was Minister for Communities, I was encouraged by civic Scotland's desire to be involved in the equalities agenda.
People often say that the true test of Government is how it deals with the elderly and the most vulnerable in society, but sometimes the true test is how we cope when things go wrong. I will give two examples from the past few years. The Chhokar case brought home many truths about Scotland, but the openness and transparency with which we handled the process, although not perfect, was superior to anything that there would have been in pre-devolution days, when the establishment would have wanted the issue to be swept under the carpet.
The same is true of the incidents at Sighthill, which Bill Butler mentioned. None of us can be proud of the way in which asylum seekers or immigrants were welcomed into our communities. Good people, such as the principals of Anniesland College and Stevenson College, told the Executive that it should change the rules to make it possible for people to study and acquire English as a foreign language and to contribute to Scottish life. We responded to that. Politics matters.
Stewart Stevenson discussed the measure of success of the campaign. I suspect that the measure of the campaign will not relate to politics, but to people. Every single one of us, every time we hear on a term of racist abuse, whether it be on the bus, the street, from our grandchildren or from our grandparents, should recognise that we have a personal responsibility to say that that is not how we live in a tolerant Scotland. The measure of success of the campaign should be whether discussions about the issue take place in living rooms throughout Scotland. Well done to the Executive.
The minister made a thoughtful and caring speech, which should give the people outside the chamber the sense that we are all onside. To be onside, we must recognise that there is an issue to address. What we have heard from members from all parties has illustrated that, and two or three points have been made extremely well.
Michael Matheson started off with the simple comment that we cannot have complacency. That is one of the root issues that we must address. He also talked about grass roots, and I shall return to that. Lyndsay McIntosh spoke of leadership in the community, and about five other members, including Robert Brown and Wendy Alexander, mentioned leadership. We have a responsibility in that context, and we must define what we mean by leadership.
Lyndsay McIntosh also talked about sending children to schools with a multicultural base. My children were lucky enough to be able to do that in most places. However, when we came back to Scotland I was disappointed that the two who were born in England were discriminated against because of their accent—in one school, by two English children who had been through the same hell and were just passing it on down the line. Children can be cruel. In another school, the discrimination was short lived and other children gave support. We all have such stories to tell.
Robert Brown spoke about language as a uniting force in our community and a tool for ensuring opportunity for all. That should be the same for all people, whether they are young, Scots and deaf and have to learn with some support, or somebody who comes from abroad and does not have the language as a natural basis. That was an important point.
One or two members talked briefly about institutional racism. I worry about that phrase. It is bandied about a lot without having any real definition. It puts pressure on our public services and our police force, who are almost guilty before they start. Nobody is saying that everybody in the world is innocent of everything; nevertheless, the Executive must address that.
Bill Butler talked about celebrating diversity, and that is what Scotland has done. We need think only about the clan history and Alasdair Morrison's comment about ensuring that Gaelic speakers are treated the same as anybody else.
Alex Johnstone brought up the issue of the Gypsy community. I heard a good speech by a member of that community at a seminar here.
I have a problem with some of the language that we use. I do not like the unhelpful definition of people as black or Asian. It is pejorative and bureaucratic, and it does not assist the recognition of racial and cultural diversity. I have many friends from the Caribbean and from Africa who cannot be defined simply by that phrase.
I am at one with the minister, who talked about not tolerating discrimination in any of its forms, whether on the grounds of race, religion, culture, or whatever.
Comments were made about the skills shortage here, but we need only think of the example of Australia. Lots of Scots went there expecting to be helped to integrate, and in return they contributed to the growth and prosperity of that country. We are experiencing a skills shortage, and we must consider how best we can deal with such things.
I talked earlier about education. Legislation is not enough. Racial equality starts in the home, with the example of parents. If it does not start in the home, and if it does not come from parents, with the best will in the world we cannot legislate to get rid of discrimination. I hope that the ministers will do their best to encourage parents to get involved in the anti-racism campaign and not just talk to children.
If we are to make a change in this country, we have to look at one thing. If a loved one is ill and we go to get help from someone in a white coat, we do not notice the colour of their skin; we just need their help. We should take that attitude into the rest of society.
It is important that we have this debate, and the SNP associates itself with the campaign. More important, we must understand that we do not discuss these matters in isolation, but that events in the wider world impact directly on our ability to deal with the issues of race equality in this country. The Muslim community in this country is living in fear because of the actions of the United Kingdom and United States Governments. We must take that fact into account and fully appreciate and understand it.
Research into discriminatory practice shows that discrimination and oppression operate at three levels: the personal, the cultural and the structural. That model claims that those levels are interrelated and that one influences the other, but the impact is on a sloping scale: the greatest is at the structural level, there is less at the cultural level and less again at the personal level.
Therefore, we must argue that a lack of policy and investment from the Government is having a knock-on effect throughout Scottish society, particularly on how people from minority ethnic backgrounds are treated. Further, the racial equality action forum set up by the Executive identified that the majority of services that are received by minority ethnic communities are delivered by the voluntary sector, but that sector is persistently disadvantaged by a lack of resources, involvement, a political voice and influence.
Research shows that links between mainstream agencies and the black and minority ethnic agencies are not well established. Those facts must be seen as further structural oppression and exclusion. Other research indicates that there are large areas of hidden and unmet needs, particularly in social work, health and housing. Processes often fail to take account of or are insensitive towards and may discriminate against the particular needs of people from minority ethnic backgrounds.
The introduction of the Race Relations (Amendment) Act 2000 placed an enforceable duty on local authorities and registered social landlords to promote racial equality. That should have been seen as an opportunity to consider the housing needs of minority ethnic people in Scotland. However, a review of published and unpublished research concluded that minority ethnic people in Scotland have suffered substantial restrictions on their housing choice because of direct and indirect discrimination.
The lack of appropriate-size housing in the social rented sector—in housing associations and in local authority housing—has been highlighted as a problem on several occasions. Indeed, only 3.7 per cent of registered social landlords in Scotland provide houses larger than a five-apartment house. Household sizes are much larger in most of the minority ethnic population in Scotland. Therefore, they are discriminated against. The lack of awareness of and delivery for their specific needs has meant that many minority ethnic households are reluctant home owners who have been forced into the private sector because of the lack of affordable, suitably sized accommodation for larger households.
Specific research shows that as many as a quarter of minority ethnic households surveyed reported that they would have preferred an alternative option to home ownership. Positive Action in Housing's recently published annual report shows that nearly 10 per cent of its cases last year were extended families facing discrimination and harassment. The under-representation of minority ethnic people in the local authority sector has ultimately led to that group missing out on the opportunity to enhance capital gain through the purchase of heavily discounted council homes.
The evidence undoubtedly demonstrates the need for a wide range of house type and size that takes into account demands for larger accommodation, particularly from the Pakistani community whose households are the largest of any minority ethnic group in Scotland. There is also a need for greater sensitivity from housing providers in relation to the housing needs of other minority ethnic people.
Minority ethnic people in Scotland continue to experience substantial racial discrimination in housing and in other basic needs of life, which is wholly unacceptable. It is necessary to educate about race equality. The Executive's advertising campaign is admirable, but positive policy making across Scotland is the only way in which we will be able to deliver a fair and inclusive Scotland. However, in terms of dealing with eradicating racism, we must be clear about its definition.
People of colour suffer the majority of racist incidents, but we must be aware that many incidents that are defined as sectarian are actually incidents of racism. We must understand that the eradication of racism requires the uprooting of an entire philosophical concept that exists in the UK because of its imperial past. We cannot ignore the fact that, having conquered and exploited peoples and cultures across the world, the continuing myth of the greatness of empire is a major obstacle to the eradication of racism in our society.
We cannot teach our children that the empire brought civilisation and democracy where none existed then assume that those children will respect non-British culture. At every opportunity we remind our children that those non-British cultures are subservient to Great Britain's culture. It is from those roots that anti-Irish, anti-Scots, anti-Welsh, anti-Muslim, anti-Sikh and anti-African attitudes arise. It is essential that any campaign fully understands that premise and acts accordingly.
This has been a full and wide-ranging debate and I am heartened that, across the chamber, there is unity on the importance of tackling racism and celebrating Scotland's diversity.
The debate has highlighted the significant contribution that people from a range of backgrounds have made and continue to make to Scottish life. We are emphasising that, for our current well-being and our future prosperity, we need to understand each other better, respect our differences and encourage and foster greater collaboration and engagement between our communities. If we are fully to realise our shared vision for Scotland, we need also to tackle the prejudice and discrimination that are experienced by many in our communities.
In a good speech, Michael Matheson emphasised the need for a united campaign and, appropriately, talked about some of his concerns. I agree with him that our efforts should be seen as a vital part of a grass-roots campaign. We require other initiatives; an advertising campaign alone will never be enough. Further, the campaign should not be a one-off as that would be a waste of funds. We support a variety of initiatives and have been taking action. We have allocated more than £300,000 a year to the black and ethnic minority voluntary sector and we have shown support for the ethnic minority grant scheme, the race equality development unit and Volunteer Development Scotland and some of the work that it is doing in black and ethnic minority communities. To be frank, I would have been inclined to recommend that members support the SNP's amendment were it not for the fact that it calls for those bodies to be fully resourced. However, I had great sympathy with what Michael Matheson said.
The evaluation of the campaign was mentioned by several members, all of whom made fair points. In the short term, we want to conduct a follow-up survey. We conducted detailed attitudinal surveys as we developed the campaign. The results of those surveys formed the basis of some of the shocking statistics that were announced at the launch of the campaign. We intend to repeat the exercise at the end of the campaign. What is of key interest to us all is not change that can be measured in days, weeks or months but longer-term and radical change that takes place over a number of years. That is the process that we are starting. We have to be committed to the long road on this issue and be determined to carry on tackling the racism that we know exists in Scotland.
I would like to ask the deputy minister the question that I asked the minister earlier. At what stage does the Executive separate the anti-racism campaign from the anti-sectarianism campaign? Does the deputy minister accept that sectarianism, in its many different forms, contains elements that are primarily motivated by racist, not sectarian, attitudes?
I accept that those issues are linked and must be tackled. Today, however, our main focus is on racism. That is the aspect of the wider issue that Lloyd Quinan rightly raises to which we want to give the greatest emphasis at this stage. Later, we intend to give appropriate priority to other areas that require to be tackled.
I welcome the fact that the Conservative amendment will not be put to a vote. It is better that we unite on this issue. As I have said, we are, in the main, united, although I was disappointed in the amendment and I would have appreciated it and the points that Lyndsay McIntosh made more if the Conservatives had a track record of initiating anti-racism initiatives during their time in office.
I welcome Robert Brown's speech, on which I will remark briefly. I thought that it was a wholly liberal contribution and I agreed with it. I was glad that Kate Maclean tackled some of the tough issues and took on Phil Gallie's comments, which I had not heard. Phil Gallie was not present to listen to them then, but he is present now. We have to be conscious of the insidious nature of racism and of some of our prejudices. Some of that is not intentional and some of it is institutional rather than personal, but it is all unacceptable racism and we must tackle it.
Will the minister give way?
I would give way to Phil Gallie, but I am about to conclude my remarks and I am on my final couple of sentences.
It is all unacceptable racism and that is what the campaign aims to tackle. Scotland is a small country but, in the words of the campaign slogan, we should not be a country of small minds. Neither should we be a country of small ambition. To achieve our ambition we need all our many talents, from wherever they may come.