The "Asian" population of Great Britain is a vibrant and visible set of communities who have made a lasting impact on British society. Be that impact one of "Curry and popodoms", the influence of Asian music on the mainstream pop industry. Or even negative sterotypes of a community of shopkeepers, and waiters.
Through statistics we can try to measure the success of these different communities. Although of course success can be defined any way we want. A family who own a large home with an expensive car may be materialistically  successful however if they have no time for their family, are they still considered a success? 

The Office of National Statistics is used as a source of information.

[B]Population.[/B]

Around half of the non-White population were Asians of Indian, Pakistani, Bangladeshi or other Asian origin.    
   
Religion.

The largest religious group in the Asian community are Pakistani Muslim's (686,000) and Indian Hindus (471,000) followed by Indian Sikhs (307,000), and Bangladeshi Muslims (261,000) .

The Indian group was religiously diverse: 45 per cent of Indians were Hindu, 29 per cent Sikh and a further 13 per cent Muslim. In contrast the Pakistani and Bangladeshi groups were more homogeneous, Muslims accounting for 92 per cent of each ethnic group.
Some faith communities were concentrated in particular ethnic groups. For example, 91 per cent of Sikhs were Indian.    

Education. Chinese pupils have best G.C.S.E results

In 2004 Chinese pupils were the most likely to achieve five or more GCSE grades A*-C in England, with 79 per cent of Chinese girls and 70 per cent of Chinese boys respectively. Indian pupils had the next highest achievement levels: 72 per cent of Indian girls and 62 per cent of Indian boys achieved these levels.

The lowest levels of GCSE attainment were among Black Caribbean pupils, particularly boys. Only 27 per cent of Black Caribbean boys and 44 per cent of Black Caribbean girls achieved five or more A*-C grade GCSEs. Pupils from the Black African, Other Black and Mixed White and Black Caribbean groups had the next lowest levels of attainment.

Within each ethnic group a higher proportion of girls than boys achieved five or more GCSE grades A*-C (or equivalent).

School exclusions
In 2003/04 pupils from Black Caribbean, Other Black and Mixed White and Black Caribbean groups were among the most likely to be permanently excluded from schools in England.

The permanent exclusion rates for pupils from the Other Black, Black Caribbean and Mixed White and Black Caribbean groups were 42 pupils per 10,000, 41 per 10,000 and 37 per 10,000 respectively. These were up to three times the rate for White pupils (14 pupils per 10,000). Chinese and Indian pupils had the lowest exclusion rates, at 2 or less pupils excluded per 10,000.

For all ethnic groups, the rate of permanent exclusions was higher for boys than girls, with boys representing around 80 per cent of the total number of permanent exclusions.

Highest qualification

In 2004 people from the Bangladeshi, Black Caribbean and Pakistani groups were less likely than White British people to have a degree (or equivalent).
Among men, Bangladeshis and Black Caribbeans were the least likely to have a degree (11 per cent for each group). Among women, Bangladeshis and Pakistanis were the least likely to have a degree, 5 and 10 per cent respectively.

The groups most likely to have degrees were Chinese (31 per cent), Indian (25 per cent) and White Irish (24 per cent). These compared with 17 per cent of White British people. However, a relatively high proportion of Chinese people had no qualifications – 20 per cent, compared with 15 per cent of White British people.
Bangladeshis and Pakistanis were the most likely to be unqualified. Five in ten (49 per cent) Bangladeshi women and four in ten (40 per cent) Bangladeshi men had no qualifications. Among Pakistanis, 35 per cent of women and 29 per cent of men had no qualifications.
   
Labour Market
Non-White unemployment highest

Unemployment rates for people from non-White ethnic groups were generally higher than those from White ethnic groups. However, Indian men had a similar level of unemployment to Other White men, at 7 per cent and 6 per cent respectively.

In 2004 Pakistani women had the highest unemployment rates in Great Britain, at 20 per cent. The next highest female rates were among women from the Black African or Mixed ethnic groups (each 12 per cent). These rates were around three times the rates for White British and White Irish women (4 per cent each). The unemployment rates for Black Caribbean (9 per cent), Indian (8 per cent) and Chinese (7 per cent) women were around twice the rates for White British and White Irish women.

Among men, those from Black Caribbean, Black African, Bangladeshi and Mixed ethnic groups had the highest unemployment rates (between 13 and 14 per cent). These rates were around three times the rates for White British and White Irish men (5 per cent in each case). The unemployment rates for Pakistani and Chinese men, 11 and 10 per cent, were around twice the rates for White British men or White Irish men.

The unemployment rate for Indian men (7 per cent) was similar to those for White British or White Irish men.

Employment patterns Paksitani's most likely to be self employed
In 2004 people in employment from Pakistani, Chinese and White Irish groups were more likely to be self-employed than those in other ethnic groups in Great Britain. One in five Pakistanis in employment were self-employed (21 per cent), as were just under one in six Chinese (16 per cent) and White Irish (15 per cent) people. This compared with around one in ten (12 per cent) White British people and fewer than one in ten people from a Mixed or Black ethnic group.

Industry
Certain ethnic groups are concentrated in particular industries. In 2004, three fifths of Bangladeshi men and just under half of Chinese men in employment worked in the distribution, hotel and restaurant industry, compared with one sixth of their White British counterparts.

Pakistani men were the group most likely to work in the transport and communication industry - 23 per cent of them worked in this sector compared with 10 per cent of employed men overall. White Irish men were more likely than other men to work in the construction industry - 20 per cent compared with 13 per cent overall.

Bangladeshi and Chinese women are also concentrated in the distribution, hotel and restaurant industry. Two in five Chinese women and one in three Bangladeshi women worked in this industry in 2004, compared with one in five of all women in employment. Half of Black Caribbean and Black African women (54 per cent and 52 per cent respectively) worked in the public administration, education or health sector.    

Managerial Jobs.

Those most likely to be employed in managerial or professional occupations were from the Chinese, Indian, White Irish, and other non-British White groups (between 32 and 38 per cent). White British people had lower rates of people working in managerial or professional occupations (27 per cent) than those groups. The groups with the lowest proportions of managers or professionals were the Black Caribbeans, Black Africans and Bangladeshis (between 19 per cent and 22 per cent).    
   
   
Looking at particular jobs, one in seven Pakistani men in employment was a taxi driver, cab driver or chauffeur, compared with 1 in 100 White British men. Over a quarter of Bangladeshi men were chefs, cooks or waiters compared with 1 in 100 White British men. The proportion of Indian men working as medical practitioners, at 4 per cent, was around 10 times higher than the rate for White British men.

Women in Employment

Among women in employment, around one in ten women from the Black African group and one in seven women from the Other Asian group were working as nurses in 2004, compared with around 1 in 30 White British women. Indian, Pakistani and Black African women were around four times more likely than White British women to be working as packers, bottlers, canners and fillers. Pakistani and Indian women were respectively around six times and four times more likely than White British women to be working as sewing machinists.
   
Health Asian's have worse self-reported health    

Pakistani and Bangladeshi men and women in England and Wales reported the highest rates of 'not good' health in 2001.

Pakistanis had age-standardised rates of 'not good' health of 13 per cent (men) and 17 per cent (women). The age-standardised rates for Bangladeshis were 14 per cent (men) and 15 per cent (women). These rates, which take account of the difference in age structures between the ethnic groups, were around twice that of their White British counterparts. Chinese men and women were the least likely to report their health as 'not good'.

Women were more likely than men to rate their health as 'not good' across all groups, apart from the White Irish and those from Other ethnic groups.

Reporting poor health has been shown to be strongly associated with use of health services and mortality. White Irish and Pakistani women in England had higher GP contact rates than women in the general population. Bangladeshi men were three times as likely to visit their GP than men in the general population after standardising for age.    
There were marked variations in rates of long-term illness or disability which restricted daily activities between different ethnic groups in England and Wales. After taking account of the different age structures of the groups, Pakistani and Bangladeshi men and women had the highest rates of disability. Rates were around 1.5 times higher than their White British counterparts. Chinese men and women had the lowest rates.

In some groups the difference between men and women in their rates of disability was much greater than in others. In the Indian, Pakistani, Black Caribbean and Black African groups, women had higher rates than men. In the White British and White Irish groups it was men who had higher rates than women.    

Housing Sikh's most likely to own their own homes

Sikh, Jewish and Hindu households are the most likely to own their own homes. Around three-quarters or more of each group did so in Great Britain in 2001 (82 per cent, 77 per cent and 74 per cent respectively). Muslim and Buddhist households were the least likely to be homeowners (52 per cent and 54 per cent respectively).

Jewish and Christian households were the most likely to own their homes outright rather than be buying with a mortgage, at 40 per cent and 32 per cent respectively. Their older age profiles account for this to some extent, as they will have had more years to finish paying off their mortgages.

Muslim households are the most likely to be living in social rented accommodation, that is accommodation rented from the council or housing association. In 2001, 28 per cent of Muslim households were living in social rented accommodation. Hindu, Sikh and Jewish households were the groups least likely to be social renters – ranging between 8 and 9 per cent.

Buddhist households were the most likely to be living in private rented accommodation (24 per cent). A very small percentage of all households live rent-free (2 per cent), but Muslim households were twice as likely as other households to do so (4 per cent).
Muslim households are the most likely to experience overcrowding. One third of Muslim households (32 per cent) lived in overcrowded accommodation in 2001, as did 22 per cent of Hindu and 19 per cent of Sikh households. Just 6 per cent of Christian households experienced overcrowding. The high proportions for Muslim, Sikh and Hindu households are, to some extent, a reflection of their large size. Their average sizes were 3.8, 3.6 and 3.2 people respectively, compared with 2.3 people among Christian and Jewish households.

Muslim households were the most likely to lack central heating (12 per cent). Hindu and Sikh households were among the least likely to lack this facility (4 per cent and 5 per cent respectively). Eight per cent of Christian households did not have central heating. These differences could be seen across all household types, including households with children and pensioner only households.

Buddhists and Muslim households were the most likely to lack sole access to a bathroom (2 and 1 per cent respectively) and to not have self-contained accommodation (1 per cent for each). Again, this was true for all household types.

This pattern of housing deprivation among the different religious groups was evident across all regions and all socio-economic groups. It was particularly marked among households that had never worked and those experiencing long-term unemployment.

Households, Muslim's have largest households

Muslim, Sikh and Hindu households in Great Britain are larger than households headed by someone of another religion. In 2001, households headed by a Muslim were largest, with an average size of 3.8 people, followed by households headed by Sikhs (3.6 people) and Hindus (3.2 people). A third of Muslim households (34 per cent) contained more than five people, as did 28 per cent of Sikh and 19 per cent of Hindu households.

Jewish, Christian and Buddhist households were smaller – each with an average size of 2.3 people. These groups have an older age structure than the other religious groups, and contain a higher proportion of one-person households. Over 30 per cent of these households contained only one person, compared with between 13 and 15 per cent of Sikh, Hindu or Muslim households.

Households headed by a Muslim are more likely than other households to contain children. Around two thirds (63 per cent) contained at least one dependent child in 2001, compared with around a quarter of Jewish (25 per cent) and Christian (27 per cent) households.

Muslim households also contained the highest number of children. A quarter (25 per cent) of Muslim households contained three or more dependent children, compared with 14 per cent of Sikh, 7 per cent of Hindu, and 5 per cent of Christian households.

The differences in the presence of children reflect partly the younger age structure of the Muslim population, and the intentions of Pakistani and Bangladeshi women. The average intended number of children among Pakistani and Bangladeshi women was 3.4 and 3.6 respectively, compared with 2.4 among Indian women and 2.1 among White women.

Lone parent households are less common within Muslim, Hindu, Sikh or Jewish communities. Hindu headed households with dependent children were the least likely be lone parent households in 2001, at 8 per cent. The proportions of Buddhist and Christian households with dependent children that were lone parent households were higher, 25 and 21 per cent respectively. Among households with dependent children headed by someone with no religious affiliation this figure was 26 per cent.

Hindus, Sikhs and Muslims are those most likely to live as married couples. Around 50 per cent of households headed by someone from one of these religions were married couple family households in 2001. This compared with between 27 and 38 per cent of households headed by people of other religions.

Jewish or Christian headed households are much more likely than those of other religions to consist only of pensioners. Again this reflects their older age structure. In 2001, around 30 per cent contained only pensioners, compared with less than 8 per cent among other groups. Nineteen per cent of Jewish and 17 per cent of Christian households were single-pensioner households. Among the other groups, no more than 5 per cent of households were single-pensioner households.

Sikh, Muslim, and Hindu households were more likely than other households to contain more than one family. Multiple-family households made up 7 per cent of all households in Great Britain overall in 2001. Among the Hindu, Muslim and Sikh communities they comprised between 19 and 21 per cent of households. These multiple-family households are likely to be single extended family households, particularly in the case of Hindu, Muslim and Sikh multiple-family households.

What does the reader think of the figures? Are we surprised shocked or even bothered by them?

Honestly, not bothered, get tired of the potty holing of people, so switch of, just my opinion thats all.

What is the purpose of this?

I did see this report in the news a week ago, asking why Europe has a problem with home grown terrorism.

The answer indicated was that the ones who emigrated to the U.S.A. tended to be in the middle-class and were after the American dream.

The ones in Europe were the less well educated and have made lives for themselves.

On the one hand their children have gained in status, but some are indulging in the "grass is always greener" phenomenon.

Yeah I wondered about why American Muslims are comparatively well integrated. There's big arab communities in America, particularly Detroit and they are proud flag waving americans and muslims who wouldn't dream of burning the US or British flag in protests. Why a tolerant country like Britain is full of extremism in comparison is a bit of a mystery, I suppose we haven't forced integration on muslims and so they have chosen to ghetoise themselves and this has led to problems

Arent 98% of muslims in Usa of afro american decent therefore have a history with their country might make a difference.

quote:

The New York Times
October 1, 2006
Black Incomes Surpass Whites in Queens
By SAM ROBERTS

Across the country, the income gap between blacks and whites remains wide, and nowhere more so than in Manhattan. But just a river away, a very different story is unfolding.

In Queens, the median income among black households, nearing $52,000 a year, has surpassed that of whites in 2005, an analysis of new census data shows. No other county in the country with a population over 65,000 can make that claim. The gains among blacks in Queens, the city’s quintessential middle-class borough, were driven largely by the growth of two-parent families and the successes of immigrants from the West Indies. Many live in tidy homes in verdant enclaves like Cambria Heights, Rosedale and Laurelton, just west of the Cross Island Parkway and the border with Nassau County.

David Veron, a 45-year-old lawyer, is one of them. He estimates that the house in St. Albans that he bought with his wife, Nitchel, three years ago for about $320,000 has nearly doubled in value since they renovated it. Two-family homes priced at $600,000 and more seem to be sprouting on every vacant lot, he says.

“Southeast Queens, especially, had a heavy influx of West Indian folks in the late 80’s and early 90’s,” said Mr. Veron, who, like his 31-year-old wife, was born on the island of Jamaica. “Those individuals came here to pursue an opportunity, and part of that opportunity was an education,” he said. “A large percentage are college graduates. We’re now maturing and reaching the peak of our earning capacity.”

Richard P. Nathan, co-director of the Nelson A. Rockefeller Institute of Government in Albany, called Queens “the flip side of the underclass.”

“It really is the best illustration that the stereotype of blacks living in dangerous, concentrated, poor, slum, urban neighborhoods is misleading and doesn’t predominate,” he said.

Andrew A. Beveridge, a Queens College demographer who analyzed results of the Census Bureau’s 2005 American Community Survey, released in August, for The New York Times, said of the trend: “It started in the early 1990’s, and now it’s consolidated. They’re married-couple families living the American dream in southeast Queens.”

In 1994, an analysis for The Times found that in some categories, the median income of black households in Queens was slightly higher than that of whites — a milestone in itself. By 2000, whites had pulled slightly ahead. But blacks have since rebounded.

The only other places where black household income is higher than among whites are much smaller than Queens, like Mount Vernon in Westchester, Pembroke Pines, Fla.; Brockton, Mass.; and Rialto, Calif. Most of the others also have relatively few blacks or are poor.

But Queens is unique not only because it is home to about two million people, but also because both blacks and whites there make more than the national median income, about $46,000.

Even as blacks have surged ahead of whites in Queens, over all they have fallen behind in Manhattan. With the middle class there shrinking, those remaining are largely either the wealthy, who are predominantly white, or the poor, who are mostly black and Hispanic, the new census data shows.

Median income among blacks in Manhattan was $28,116, compared with $86,494 among whites, the widest gap of any large county in the country.

In contrast, the middle-class black neighborhoods of Queens evoke the “zones of emergence” that nurtured economically rising European immigrants a century ago, experts say. “It’s how the Irish, the Italians, the Jews got out of the slums,” Professor Nathan said.

Despite the economic progress among blacks in Queens, income gaps still endure within the borough’s black community, where immigrants, mostly from the Caribbean, are generally doing better than American-born blacks.

“Racism and the lack of opportunity created a big gap and kind of put us at a deeper disadvantage,” said Steven Dennison, an American-born black resident of Springfield Gardens.

Mr. Dennison, a 49-year-old electrical contractor, has four children. One is getting her doctoral degree; another will graduate from college this school year. “It starts with the school system,” Mr. Dennison said.

Mr. Vernon, the lawyer from Jamaica, said: “It’s just that the people who left the Caribbean to come here are self-starters. It only stands to reason they would be more aggressive in pursuing their goals. And that creates a separation.”

Housing patterns do, too. While blacks make more than whites — even those in the borough’s wealthiest neighborhoods, including Douglaston — they account for fewer than 1 in 20 residents in some of those communities. And among blacks themselves, there are disparities, depending on where they live.

According to the latest analysis, black households in Queens reported a median income of $51,836 compared with $50,960 for non-Hispanic whites (and $52,998 for Asians and $43,927 among Hispanic people).

Among married couples in Queens, the gap was even greater: $78,070 among blacks, higher than any other racial or ethnic group, and $74,503 among whites.

Hector Ricketts, 50, lives with his wife, Opal, a legal secretary, and their three children in Rosedale. A Jamaican immigrant, he has a master’s degree in health care administration, but after he was laid off more than a decade ago he realized that he wanted to be an entrepreneur. He established a commuter van service.

“When immigrants come here, they’re not accustomed to social programs,” he said, “and when they see opportunities they had no access to — tuition or academic or practical training — they are God-sent, and they use those programs to build themselves and move forward.”

Immigrants helped propel the gains among blacks. The median income of foreign-born black households was $61,151, compared with $45,864 for American-born blacks. The disparity was even more pronounced among black married couples.

The median for married black immigrants was $84,338, nearly as much as for native-born white couples. For married American-born blacks, it was $70,324.

One reason for the shifting income pattern is that some wealthier whites have moved away.

“As non-Hispanic whites have gotten richer, they have left Queens for the Long Island suburbs, leaving behind just middle-class whites,” said Professor Edward N. Wolff, an economist at New York University. “Since home ownership is easier for whites than blacks in the suburbs — mortgages are easier to get for whites — the middle-class whites left in Queens have been relatively poor. Middle-class black families have had a harder time buying homes in the Long Island suburbs, so that blacks that remain in Queens are relatively affluent.”

The white median also appeared to have been depressed slightly by the disproportionate number of elderly whites on fixed incomes.

But even among the elderly, blacks fared better. Black households headed by a person older than 65 reported a median income of $35,977, compared with $28,232 for white households.

Lloyd Hicks, 77, who moved to Cambria Heights from Harlem in 1959, used to run a freight-forwarding business near Kennedy Airport. His wife, Elvira, 71, was a teacher. Both were born in New York City, but have roots in Trinidad. He has a bachelor’s degree in business. She has a master’s in education.

“Education was always something the families from the islands thought the children should have,” Mr. Hicks said.

In addition to the larger share of whites who are elderly, said Andrew Hacker, a Queens College political scientist, “black Queens families usually need two earners to get to parity with working whites.”

Kenneth C. Holder, 46, a former prosecutor who was elected to a Civil Court judgeship last year, was born in London of Jamaican and Guyanese parents and grew up in Laurelton. His wife, Sharon, who is Guyanese, is a secretary at a Manhattan law firm. They own a home in Rosedale, where they live with their three sons.

“Queens has a lot of good places to live; I could move, but why?” Mr. Holder said. “There are quite a number of two-parent households and a lot of ancillary services available for youth, put up by organized block associations and churches, like any middle-class area.”

In smaller categories, the numbers become less precise. Still, for households headed by a man, median income was $61,151 for blacks and $54,537 for whites. Among households headed by a woman, the black and white medians were the same: $50,960.

Of the more than 800,000 households in Queens, according to the Census Bureau’s 2005 American Community Survey, about 39 percent are white, 23 percent are Hispanic, 18 percent are Asian, and 17 percent are black — suggesting multiple hues rather than monotone black and white.

“It is wrong to say that America is ‘fast becoming two nations’ the way the Kerner Commission did,” said Professor Nathan, who was the research director for the National Advisory Commission on Civil Disorders in 1968 and disagreed with its conclusion. “It might be, though, that it was more true then than it is now.”

Boring city. Just thought I would put my own boring statistics up for a laugh, because I can, has absolutely nothing to do with this country, but felt it didn't matter.

quote:

Originally posted by MRTIBBS.:
Arent 98% of muslims in Usa of afro american decent therefore have a history with their country might make a difference.

The story I saw was all about Middle-eastern Muslims.

Well then there only small in number I suspect there trying to get away from the M E and it's probems, so there might be a clue there.

quote:

Originally posted by MRTIBBS.:
Well then there only small in number I suspect there trying to get away from the M E and it's probems, so there might be a clue there.

The question referred to the homegrown Islamist threat. Whilst the ones in 9/11 were from Saudi Arabia.

Sorry there was a question was there wasn't addressing any questions didn't see any, rather thinking out aloud then typing it if you like, I must stop doing that.

Apologies here as well.

The topic was started over the success of Asians in the U.K., who tend to be Muslims then I mentioned the part over the integration of Muslims in the U.S.A. compared to this country.

Interesting that the U.S. can be separate in their communities yet actively feel American.

Maybe because the majority of the muslims think of themselves as African American first then Muslim.

quote:

The topic was started over the success of Asians in the U.K., who tend to be Muslims

No there are many, many Asian's who are not Muslim. Such as

Sikh's

Hindu's

Guarati's

And so many more, there are many different cultures in the British Asian communities in this country.

quote:

Originally posted by Sabzina:
What is the purpose of this?

The purpose is why is there such a big difference in the Briitish Asian communities?
Why are some cultures likely to be quite well educated,more likely to own their own homes, and have good jobs, and thus have a better quality of life.
Whilst other communities are more likely to have a poorer education,who then find it harder to get a good job, and have to rely on the state to provide for them and have poor health.

Why the big difference?

quote:

Originally posted by Sanj Singh:

quote:

The topic was started over the success of Asians in the U.K., who tend to be Muslims

No there are many, many Asian's who are not Muslim. Such as

Sikh's

Guarati's

And so many more, there are many different cultures in the British Asian communities in this country.

The cultures are not that different, there are many languages, but all speak English. Food has a few regional varieties.
Religion is religion it is a faith not a race. There are a number buffoons who claim 'hindus' are a race, really well how comes Guru Nanks parents were of the hindu faith, does that mean someones race changes when their faith does
These cultures are not separate or distinct, nor act in isolation. e.g. Punjabis, language food customs practically the same regardless of faith or nonfaith.
People experince the varieties available resulting in more of a merging of cultures, not completely but overlapping as some people will take on other regional practices like food.

Aryans invasion garbage has been rightly put in the dustbin of history:

Aryans

quote:

The usual explanation found in history books is that the inhabitants of the Harappan cities were driven out by the invading Aryans. However it is now recognized by scholars that the Aryan invasion theory of India is a myth that owes more to European politics than anything in Indian records or archaeology. (The politics of History, The Hindustan Times, Nov. 28 1993).

Also the economic climate can affect peoples doing well. This economic climates affects all people who live there. Like in the North where industries have failed affects those who lost their jobs, what difference will someones culture make here?

There are a great deal of different cultures and communities within the larger umbrella of British Asian society.
The question I ask is why is there such a diifference between them?
As Dogra has pointed these cultures are quite similar. The culture of the Panjabi's for example is very similar even though the people of the Punjab belong to three different religions, Sikhi, Hinduism and Islam.Yet there is a big difference between the economic activity of Indian's as a whole but that "success" is quite different to that of India's neighbours.
Another good point by Dogra was people living in the North may have been affected by the decline in industry. However Muslim people are found all over the United Kingdom, in every city and major town. So why the difference?
Isn't this a point which needs to be discussed, surely by learning from whatever mistakes made in the past we can save future generations from escaping the cycle of poverty.

Smoking and Drinking, Bangladeshi men have highest smoking rates

Bangladeshi men were the most likely group in England to smoke cigarettes (44 per cent in 1999), followed by White Irish (39 per cent) and Black Caribbean men (35 per cent). Men from each of these ethnic groups were more likely to smoke than men in the general population (27 per cent). Chinese men (17 per cent) were the least likely to smoke.

Similar proportions of Pakistani (26 per cent) and Indian (23 per cent) men smoked as in the general population.

Like men, White Irish and Black Caribbean women had the highest smoking rates in 1999 (33 per cent and 25 per cent respectively), although only White Irish women had a rate higher than the general population (27 per cent). However, unlike men, women in every other minority ethnic group were much less likely to smoke than women in the general population.

Patterns of cigarette smoking among the different ethnic groups remained the same after allowing for differences in their age structures.

Although very few Bangladeshi women smoked cigarettes, a relatively large proportion (26 per cent) chewed tobacco. This me