---

Terrorism and Community Relations

: I understand the hon. Gentleman's point. It is true that the violent crime statistics do not necessarily bear out such concerns. The available statistics, some of which have been gathered by community organisations, show, for example, an increase in anti-Semitic attacks that is at least as high as any reported increase in anti-Muslim attacks. The issue is complex. On a cautionary note, to some extent perception may be subjective, but it can be real. It can colour the way in which people feel that their lives are being lived. We said in the report that we had analysed the data—last year's data, of course—on the use of section 44 powers. We did not find evidence to show that they were being used disproportionately to target Asians—we did not refer to Muslims because the data had not been collected. Those powers are largely used in London, and pretty much in proportion to the London population. However, there is no doubt from the evidence that young Muslims feel that they are being targeted by the use of the powers. That is a substantive political issue. We cannot simply say that they are wrong, and that they will just have to lump it. We will have to deal with it. I understand the hon. Gentleman's point, but some care needs to be taken about what conclusions we draw from it. As for the documents that we did not receive, it was made clear there had been a fairly extensive assessment by the Government, which had not been shared publicly, setting out the reasons why some young people might be drawn into extremism and possibly terrorism. It is a lengthy assessment. I shall not read it all out, but the section on policy issues states:"““It seems that a particularly strong case of disillusionment amongst Muslims including young Muslims is a perceived ‘double standard' in the foreign policy of western governments (and often those of Muslim governments), in particular Britain and the US.””" It said that there was"““Perceived Western bias in Israel's favour over the Israel/Palestinian conflict””." and continued:"““The perception is that passive ‘oppression', as demonstrated in British foreign policy, eg non-action on Kashmir and Chechnya, has given way to ‘active oppression'.””" I shall not go into the merits of those issues, but it is significant that there has been an assessment inside the Government of the factors leading to potential involvement in extremism and terrorism that is different from what they said publicly about the same issues when they were raised in debate. The Government might sometimes think that points in their private assessment are difficult, controversial and not to be aired in public—but if there is a theme running through our report, it is that greater openness, and more open discussion of such difficulties issues, are essential. If some young people are alienated by foreign policy, we should admit it openly and then engage in the ensuing discussion. We do not say that the policy has to be changed, but we should say that it is on the agenda and open for debate. We must not say that it cannot be discussed. This is not only about whether the Committee gets relevant documents, although that is an important procedural point, but about how the Government discuss such matters. I have a final moan to make to the Minister. When preparing for today's debate, I tried to get Select Committee members further information about the commission on integration, but was told that the only document that could be made available to the Committee was a September press release. I must tell my right hon. Friend that such a response is not good enough, given the working relationship that Select Committees should have with Government Departments. I wish to make a personal point before turning to the report. It is my considered view that we need a dedicated Minister of State to deal with counter-terrorism. I mean no disrespect to my right hon. Friend the Minister for Policing, Security and Community Safety. I used to resist the idea of having a homeland security Minister on the ground that our resilience structures for dealing with attacks did not need a shake-up or co-ordination. Indeed, the response of the emergency services in London—they have never been complacent—show the strength of our existing resilience structures. However, given the scale of the threat that we face, spreading a number of issues—from the Security Service and certain aspects of foreign policy to the matters that we are debating today—across a number of Departments makes things quite difficult. The idea of having a Minister to deal with counter-terrorism was apparently floated in a Cabinet Office or policy unit paper that was leaked at the weekend. If such a post is created, it clearly should not be in the Cabinet Office, which is an elephants' graveyard from which nothing useful emerges. It should be a Home Office position; I hope that the Government will take that idea forward. The Committee's report is obviously lengthy, and many Members want to contribute to the debate, so I shall highlight a few points and try not to repeat what I have already said. We found an overall deterioration in community relations, although there were many positive points. We highlighted the fact that it went further than the Muslim community; there had been an increase in anti-Semitic attacks, and the Hindu and Sikh communities felt that their concerns had sometimes been neglected. However, the claim made during our inquiry that organisations based at Neasden Hindu temple were involved in terrorism were not substantiated—a fact that we recorded in our conclusions. We examined the use of stop and search powers, which is a major problem for the Government's stop and search group. It may be that young Muslims are not being disproportionately stopped using terrorist powers, but they are clearly stopped in large numbers under other stop and search powers, as are other young Asians. The way in which young Muslims perceive those searches is a problem: they perceive that they are being targeted because of terrorism. Whether that is really the case or not, we could not establish, but the Government need to deal with that problem. We also considered the role of the media. All media witnesses rejected the claim that the Government manipulated the media agenda in order to exploit or raise public concern over terrorism. However, we were highly critical of much media coverage. Some, perhaps, is obvious. For instance, it is no surprise to have heard that if tabloid newspapers linked asylum, terrorism and Muslims in one phrase or in one article, it would give rise to fear and hatred. More surprising was the extent of criticism of the broadcast media—or at least about their impact. Although the broadcast media rarely show the excesses of some of the tabloid press, we were told that apparently straightforward factual accounts of terrorist attacks involving people who claim to be Muslims can and do have a direct effect on community cohesion. That is a real challenge for broadcasters. I do not pretend to know the answers, but it was useful to highlight the issue. There are areas in which positive action is needed. The agenda set out by the Cantle report on community cohesion in 2001—particularly with regard to bringing communities together, where people live separate lives—is as relevant today as in 2001. It is important that the Government should refresh that agenda and give it a new lease of life. Local leadership has a critical role. We saw impressive work by some local authorities here and in France and the Netherlands, in bringing communities together. The quality of leadership at local level often impressed the Select Committee more than the leadership of some national organisations—not necessarily Governments but faith organisations and others. There was much greater dynamism among faith leaders of all faiths at local level than among some of those at national level who came to the Select Committee. Faith work is important, but inter-faith organisations at local level were patchy in their coverage and often did not reach beyond the small numbers of people who were currently involved with them. The Government cannot force such organisations to come into existence, but national and local government can do much to help. The good practice that we saw in local government was far from standard. Even in the best led areas there is still a struggle to involve the young people who might be most at risk of being drawn into extremism. By way of a brief aside on the Cantle agenda, I think that the events in Birmingham this weekend, linked to issues entirely other than those that we are discussing today, should reinforce the message for us that when communities in towns and cities appear to live side by side but do not interact successfully, we have a problem on which the Government need to act. Schools are enormously important, because they are places where a large number of young people from different backgrounds come together. We were worried by what we found out about schools. We commissioned a well-respected organisation called PeaceMaker, which is well known in the north-west, to work with school students and tell us what was happening among young white students and young Muslim students. Many schools were reluctant even to let PeaceMaker in to hold the discussion. I do not want to repeat the evidence, which is in the report, but when discussions did take place, the suspicions, mistrust and prejudice that we found were worrying. The Government have an important role in providing leadership to schools and giving them the confidence to handle such different discussions in schools. The response to the relevant point in our report was worrying. The Government told us that that was really a matter for schools and local education authorities. I was pleased that when the Home Secretary gave evidence to us on Tuesday he acknowledged that there is a more important role for central Government—and I hope that the Minister will tell us what is to be done. Another aspect of the Cantle report that we have pursued is the importance of a constructive debate about British identity and how it should work in the 21st century. That discussion needs to happen. An anecdote that is not in the Committee's record is about a group of young Muslim school students from the north-west of England who wrote to us towards the end of our inquiry ask if they could come to give evidence. It was far too late to add them to our official group of witnesses, but more than half the Committee turned up to an informal session one day, to hear them speak, and they gave us a wide range of useful insights into their experiences. It was the week after a young man from Gloucester had been convicted of planning to blow up an aircraft, and we asked the students why on earth a young man, apparently with a reasonably comfortable background and good academic success, should get into that position. With one voice they said, ““It's simple; it's about identity.”” It is about people who are not confident of who they are in a society where they are perhaps rejected because of their race and where their faith is not accepted, and with which they find it hard to identify, although they do not particularly identify with their parents, or with their parents' or grandparents' country or culture either. Who are they? They could turn, as a minority do—we say this in the report—to faith as an identity. Within that, a minority of a minority turn to extreme interpretations. It seems to the Committee that open discussion is needed, not just about how Muslims feel British, because that will not work, but about how we all, in future, can feel British in a multi-cultural society. The Government—I was a part of that Government at the time—missed the opportunity provided by the Cantle report in 2001 to push the debate forward. We now need to do that. That debate has broken out in the pages of the broadsheets and the intellectual political magazines, but to have any meaning, it needs to take place at street, community and local government level. The Committee thought it important that new legislation should be developed in close consultation with the Muslim community. I am not sure whether that is true of the Terrorism Bill, particularly the first two clauses, which are designed to help us to tackle extremist ideas. It is unclear whether the people in the Muslim community whom we expect to be in the front line of tackling extremist ideas find those clauses helpful. We said that there was a need, in such sensitive areas, to work in close conjunction with the Muslim community—although of course it is more than a community; it is a series of communities. Will the Minister tell us what endorsement of the proposals has been received from the Muslim community? We now know that the Government's assessment of the situation a year ago warned against targeting organisations such as Hizb ut-Tahrir, on the ground that that is not right the way in which to tackle extremism. Why has that assessment changed? I conclude on a clear and positive note. That is important, because these reports inevitably concentrate on shortcomings and things that need to be improved. Despite all that I have said about the Government having to do more, the need for greater urgency and being pleased about what the Government are doing now, our clear, unanimous assessment in March and April was that this country has done better, made more extensive preparations and approached the problems much more seriously than others whose representatives we met in France and the Netherlands. In the extent to which they have got to grips with these issues, they are some way behind us. The Government, and other organisations, involved deserve some credit for doing that. Our report was quoted extensively in the debate on these issues in the Netherlands Parliament a few months ago. We, as a Select Committee, want to continue our interest in these issues. At the end of November we will host a conference of our sister committees across the European Union to discuss the report and share experiences, and we are pleased that the Home Secretary will host the main dinner of the conference. I understand informally—this is not confirmed—that the Austrian presidency is likely to continue focusing on this issue, and that we will again meet our sister select committees in about six months' time to further our discussions. I hope that that will be useful. Although many such issues have to be discussed at Government-to-Government level, I hope that the regular engagement of serious parliamentarians from serious select committees across Europe will help us to share experiences and develop our understanding of how to tackle these important issues.