Question: The Race Relations Amendment Act has recently come into effect - how is the CRE bearing up to the burden of that responsibility?

Gurbux Singh: Well the Act came into effect on April 2 of this year, and since that date, individuals have been able to seek redress in the courts on matters which previously they couldn't.

You will recall that for the first time certain public functions were brought under the aegis of the Act that enabled individuals to go to the County Court if they felt they were being discriminated against. So for the first time, if somebody felt aggrieved by the way the police enforced policing activity, such as stop and search, they could take a case to the County Court.

There are certain matters in relation to the Immigration service that people could now go and do. So that was the one element of the Act that came into effect immediately from April 2. Other crucial matters in relation to the Amendment Act are clearly coming in on a phased basis, and perhaps the most important element of the Act is the positive duty in relation to the public sector. For the first time the public sector will need to promote racial equality and eliminate discrimination through the production of a race equality scheme. But that will only come into effect once the Home Secretary has issued the appropriate orders. The Home Secretary issued a consultation document earlier this year seeking the public sector's views about the application of that new duty. That consultation period concluded in May of this year. I understand that the Home Secretary is now considering a response to that consultation paper and at some stage in the very near future, will be issuing orders around that new duty. Once those orders have been issued we at the CRE will seek Parliamentary approval for our code of practice. Then the new duty will come into effect.

The challenge for the CRE is to produce the code of practice, to publish detailed guidance for the public sector, setting out precisely what we expect organisations to be doing. We will provide a tool kit which enables the public sector to respond to the new duty in a serious and vigorous way. We will be putting out in mid November the precise details of that tool kit, essentially a draught code of practice aimed at all of the public sector including education bodies, as well as detailed guidance and advice which will be sector specific. We will put that out for consultation from the middle of November for a period of three months to enable the public sector to have a real look at what we're proposing both in relation to the duty and the detailed guidance to enable us to capture the views of public bodies, make appropriate amendments and then publish the final version.

So there's a significant set of actions necessary as lead in for that new duty to kick in. We're also working with appropriate agencies to run the relevant training programmes aimed at elements of the public sector. So we will look at service specific training programmes - the health sector, local government, central government, the police and other public sectors. So all that is happening now but the end product will be individual schemes produced by individual public sector bodies.

Earlier in the year we ran a whole series of regional conferences called 'Beyond Rhetoric' which set out the details of the act, the sort of expectations we had in mind for the public sector, and which also spelt out very clearly the detailed implications of the act for different elements of the public sector. The conferences enabled many public bodies to start gearing up to meet their new obligations under the Act.

Question: At this early stage, do you have any concerns that there are any public services that won't be able to meet this new commitment or is it too early to say?

Gurbux Singh: I think it is far too early to say but what I can say is that I was struck by the level of enthusiasm at the regional conferences. I remain confident that public bodies across the sector will respond to this challenge very well.

I was at an event that we organised for London chief executives to look at the implications of the new Act, and the level of enthusiasm and seriousness with which they were approaching it gives me a feeling that the public sector will respond to this new duty in the challenging way in which we expect them to do so. But ultimately the test will be when that duty kicks in, when they have to produce the schemes, and then an assessment of the quality of those schemes. It's only then that we will actually be able to measure that commitment. It's important that we at the CRE are geared up adequately - I believe we are, there's a tight timescale but I believe we're working extremely well to produce the draft code. We're working pretty much with different sectors to produce the advice, so all that work is currently in hand. That will be finalised in a matter of a few weeks with the intention of putting that out for consultation. I remain optimistic and all the messages that I've got back from the public sector are extremely positive. They see this as a challenge, but they also see it as a tool with which they can promote some real change.

Question: What do you want this second term government to do to deliver on race relations?

Gurbux Singh: The CRE is focussed on securing measurable change across public and private sector institutions. We've welcomed the new public duty because history shows that there's been a fair amount of rhetoric and lip service paid to race issues across different sectors in the past. What we now have is a piece of legislation that will place a legal duty on organisations to take a pro-active approach to race equality.

I believe the Race Relations (Amendment) Act fits neatly into the Government's modernisation agenda and its focus on the delivery of high quality public services. Race fits very much into the desire to improve public services, to drive up performance, to increase accountability, and to get closer to service users.

Question: And does race fit into the government looking at private sector solutions to the public services as well?

Gurbux Singh: Yes. The CRE is not concerned in any dogmatic way with who the actual providers are. The ultimate test is about quality and relevance. The public sector has got to recognise that they have a responsibility to respond to the different needs of all communities as opposed to perhaps the homogenous way in which services have been delivered in the past. So I think that I view the second term of government principally being about raising standards in the public sector, improving services and I believe that the issues and concerns about race fit neatly into that particular agenda.

Question: This summer saw race riots across the country and following the terrorist attacks in the US, there's increased reports of racist attacks on Muslims. How concerned are you about this increase in tensions?

Gurbux Singh: Firstly let me say that all of us were and are appalled at the dreadful events in America. It goes without saying. That also goes for the vast majority of Muslims in this country. I've met with the Union of Muslim Organisations and again the message is very clear - there is condemnation of the events which took place on September 11. Having said that, and in spite of that universal condemnation, we are seeing some evidence of a backlash. We've seen that backlash in the most graphic terms in the States where a Sikh was murdered and numerous assaults have taken place on Muslims or other Asians. We've also seen some evidence of that happening in this country, regrettably. We've seen the very tragic case of the Afghan taxi driver in South London who is now paralysed. We've seen the dreadful case of the 19-year-old woman in Swindon who, according to police statements, was a victim of a racial attack based on her being perceived to be a Muslim. We've seen assaults up and down the country on individuals, and attacks on religious buildings.

I welcome the call for calm and rationality made by the Prime Minister, Home Secretary and Foreign Secretary immediately after September 11. We support the call for calm, and are in touch with faith organisations up and down the country. We would like to see those faith organisations providing precisely that leadership - calling for calm within different religious communities so that we avoid the backlash that we've seen in the States. Rather than being pulled apart at this time, we need to be pulled together. We need to see communities coming together, we need to be rebuilding bridges across communities. Because in fact, the thing that really struck me about the events of the summer was the issue of communities being fragmented - segregation being hugely pronounced in many of our Northern towns and cities where communities were disconnected, and in fact there wasn't this political and civic leadership which will bring communities together. Now what we desperately need to see is that leadership at local level.

Question: Do you think it needs a minister to pull it together at a national level?

Gurbux Singh: Yes and to some extent that pulling together is up to John Denham who is chairing a ministerial group which is looking at precisely the issues that arose out of the events in the summer. And inevitably he will also be overseeing the immediate response to the events since September 11. I'm not simply saying that this should be left to local leaders to deal with, whether be they civic leaders or religious or faith leaders. Yes there has to be some real concerted leadership at national level. There needs to be some sensible co-ordination across government.

The Government has appointed Ted Campbell to head a review which looks at the lessons that can be learnt from the events which happened in the summer and I'm very much looking forward to that review concluding, probably in the New Year. So there has to be some national government leadership and there has to be a considerable look at what went wrong and the lessons that can be learnt from it so that the policy implications of that can actually be prepared. But also there has to be some leadership at local level.

We also need to look at the way the media deals with these issues. I was delighted with the way in which The Sun dealt with the issues following on from the events of 11 September. The media generally has got to take a balanced approach on the issue. If we get that right, if the media presents the issues in a correct and positive way, then perhaps we can minimise the tensions.

Question: There's a criticism that the media sometimes handles the issue of race and race riots too simplistically. Would you agree?

Gurbux Singh: Well my view is balanced - some elements of the media have dealt with it very well, others have dealt with it less well. There are examples of good and bad practice across the media as there are across other sectors. But the important thing about the media is that it is so powerful in forming opinion and therefore needs to be extremely careful with that power. I would like the media to preach the message of calm and rationality and talk up the virtues of multi-racial Britain. There are many huge benefits of multi-racial Britain and we should be talking up the principles of multi-cultural Britain, as opposed to simply focusing on the negatives that we are currently experiencing. The CRE has launched a new poster campaign which aims to do just that. The poster shows the faces of thirty members of the general British public under the heading 'Britain, we all make it unique - 56 million people, over 300 languages and at least 14 faiths make us what we are today'. Our last advertising campaign used famous people to celebrate the diversity of Britain. This time, they are not celebrities, but they too want to do their bit for race relations in Britain. We are encouraging as many people as possible to display these posters throughout their local communities and do their bit to promote good race relations.

Question: Some people argue that single faith schools is something that could cause further division - would you go along with that?

Gurbux Singh: The first thing that struck me when I went around our Northern towns and cities, was the issue of segregation. It was segregation at three distinct levels. Clearly one was residential segregation, two was social segregation and three was education segregation. And I found all three deeply alarming.

In relation to residential segregation - there appeared literally to be geographical boundaries, invisible walls created between boundaries, and I found that deeply worrying. Social segregation was equally of concern. I talked to white and Asian youngsters in some of those Northern towns and cities and what struck me was that there was complete segregation at a social level. The youngsters were simply not socially mixing. If we perpetuate that then we perpetuate large scale separation and segregation and that cannot be healthy. And in terms of education segregation, it cannot be right that in 17 primary schools in Oldham, 90 plus per cent of the school role are of one ethnic group. Faith schools may well contribute to that. Now I'm not actually saying that we should be calling for government to not give recognition to faith schools because there are very complex matters attached to it. But we do need to look at the question of faith schools. I've equally heard the view expressed that faith schools will lead to the perpetuation of segregation. We do need to look at the issue very carefully but we also need to look at the issue in relation to poor education per se.

It is a well-known fact that Black Caribbean boys and now Pakistani and Bangladeshi boys and girls leave school having done significantly less well. I think we need to redress that issue as well as looking at the merits and demerits of faith schools. We can't simply have a knee jerk reaction that simply says we're deeply concerned about segregation, faith schools de facto produce separate schools and therefore we need to dismantle them. We need to have a much more mature and considered debate about this before we can arrive at a decision. Clearly as part of the education debate, the issue of faith schools should be addressed. We should be looking at the issue, but I am not actually saying at this stage that we should scrap them.

Question: But you'd be wary of extending them?

Gurbux Singh: I'd want us to look at this complex and broad issue seriously. It isn't simply about Muslim schools. Do we actually say we want to abolish Jewish or Church of England schools? We need to look at it in the whole across the piste, but I'm not suggesting we should dump them. Clearly it is an issue that can contribute to segregation. We've only got to look at the events in Northern Ireland to see the consequences of segregated education, and the divisions it can create both within society and also in terms of social interaction of young people.

Question: Are you concerned following the backlash of September 11 that there is a fear that Britain could slip into Islamophobia?

Gurbux Singh: People have said for a number of years that Islamophobia is a problem. In fact there have been two or three separate commissions looking at that issue and the Runneymede Trust report on the future of multi-ethnic Britain is very clear that Islamophobia is an issue which needs attention. The government itself has commissioned a research project which looked at Islamophobia at the University of Durham, and I believe the Runneymede Trust set up a commission into Islamophobia. So this is not a new issue. The conclusions of all those three research activities, is that Islamophobia needs to be tackled.

The government is now looking at the whole question of religious discrimination. Article 13 of the Amsterdam Treaty calls, through the Employment Directive, on all member states to look at the need to outlaw religious discrimination within the employment sector by December 2003. The CRE supports the many organisations who are seeking to tackle religious discrimination.

Question: There's a debate over the comments from a minority of Islamic fundamentalists - some say they are an incitement to terrorism and others say it's freedom of speech. Where do you stand?

Gurbux Singh: It's my belief that the views expressed by a number of people do not represent the views of the vast majority of Muslim people in this country. Secondly it is my view that the government should consider whether the rules should be strengthened to actually make some of the statements that they've been making public offences. At the moment as the law stands it's either incitement of racial hatred or public disorder, and that's a matter which the police should be charged with dealing with. Now I suspect that the law in relation to the incitement of racial hatred is such that the statements made probably cause a breach. I welcome the government's proposals to extend the law to cover incitement to religious as well as racial hatred.

Question: Do you believe the main political parties have adequately recognised the rise of the BNP in areas such as Oldham and Bradford?

Gurbux Singh: I suspect that the reality is that where the BNP has been active, it has been in areas where there's been a void. In those communities I believe that there are some fundamental deep-seated problems, problems of disconnected communities, white and Asian. This is not just an issue about white and black, it is about people being disconnected from society.

We see young people that are disaffected and alienated, we see poverty and deprivation. Those communities feel as if they've been let down and that the political and civic leadership is not addressing the problem. I think the BNP has exploited that particular scenario in order to try to fill the void that exists. That is a very strong lesson for political parties - they cannot afford to allow communities to become disconnected. Politicians and community leaders have a major leadership role to play at a local level in order to create the bridges across communities. We need to involve our communities in areas like service provision for example. If we were doing all this then I believe the BNP would not be able to exploit the void.

Gurbux Singh: The Commission was accused of attempting to fetter public debate about race to constrain discussion, to stop politicians having a debate about immigration, asylum and anything else. If you read the words of the compact and pledge, that was the last thing we wanted. What the compact (a cross-party agreement on race relations best practice for political campaigners) was calling for was a mature responsible debate about race, an informed debate about race, an inclusive debate about race. The CRE was successful in getting political parties and individual MPs to sign up to that pledge. The compact showed a broad consensus in public political life that any exploitation of racism or prejudice is unacceptable. However, there has to be some considerable regret in the way that the debate unfolded - not as a result of anything the CRE did, we were simply brokering something which we had brokered since 1992. But I think the very acrimonious way in which everything took off, actually was tremendously regrettable. So race became an issue in the period building up to the election, rather than a significant feature of the election itself. It sadly became a major deflection on the sort of debate that I and many people in this country were looking for - a sensible, mature discussion about race.