---

Terrorism and Community Relations

: I read that passage and I heartily agree with the right hon. Gentleman that it is possible to be misled at both ends about the scope of the legislation. I have objections to the legislation on narrow legal grounds: it will not be helpful and it will not make good law. However, I accept that some people are exaggerating its probable impact, and that others are exaggerating the benefits that might flow from it. It is worrying that, even with the second introduction of the Bill, misconceptions about what it might, or ought to, achieve are still quite widespread, certainly within the Muslim community. Another point that emerged in our debate, and which I hope flows from the comments I have made, is to do with national identity and building common values. I heartily agree with what has been said on that. Unless we as a society can build common values, celebrate them and explain what those values are all about, it will be difficult for us to make progress. One of the problems is that we have been poor at explaining what our values are. I recently addressed a meeting largely consisting of Muslims, and I was struck when, on the subject of religion—I should perhaps explain that I am a warden in an Anglican church—an articulate and very pleasant woman in the audience who was wearing the hijab explained that it was difficult to be a Muslim in western society because of the constraints of her religion that were upon her. The report perhaps does not fully acknowledge that point. She said that the disciplines her faith impose on the individual make it difficult for Muslims to adapt to some aspects of the western society and culture in which they live, and therefore—this follows logically—make it more difficult for them to interact with others. I was slightly amused because she used an expression that one often hears, ““Islam is a way of life,”” and I responded by pointing out, ““Well, actually you know, Christianity is a way of life as well.”” She was rather amazed by that. I tried to go on to explain that the underpinning of our society, and what has made Britain so attractive, is the willingness of people to make compromises in respect of tolerating others and interacting with them even though we may disagree with their views, and, indeed, their moral and spiritual outlook. Until we get it across that that is one of the fundamental values on which our country is based, we will have great difficulty in bringing about the community cohesion that we all desire, because we will continue to have people considering that they live in a valueless society. The point has been made in the report and this debate that it is the belief in the valuelessness of the society in which they live that is driving some young Muslims into extremism. There is a nihilistic element to that extremism. A celebration of death is a common phenomenon among the young. We tend to brush it under the carpet in western society, but it is not particularly unusual. The fact that many young Muslims see their elders as sharing some of their—[Interruption.] It sounds like someone is making a cappuccino. As I was saying, some of the problems are intergenerational. There seems to be a perception among many young Muslims that their parents have no answers to these problems. One of the things we hear is that politics is kept out of the mosque, when they want to discuss important social issues within a religious framework. I have some sympathy with that point of view. I have come to the conclusion in respect of many Muslim girls who decide to wear the hijab, or even to go further and wear the veil that in some instances that is a form of rebellion against their parents. Some of them also believe that, because they practise Islam in a purer way than the older generation, that justifies them breaking loose and getting professional careers. That is interesting and heartening, and perhaps it should alter our view about why people embrace certain religious symbols. Despite that sign of hope, there is a real problem, but how do we address it? Like my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury, I do not want to end on a low note. I remain greatly optimistic about the future of this country, but think that we need to bear two things in mind. First, if we are to overcome what Cantle identified so correctly, it can only be done at the most local level. The idea that the rituals in which we engage as politicians, which may be important in providing a setting, can solve the problem is wrong. Only if we facilitate the interaction of people on a neighbourhood level will we start to break down prejudice and moderate and alter people's behaviour. If one's neighbour, whom one respects, says that something that one does makes the relationship difficult, one is more likely to do something about it than if nobody speaks about it although the subject is taboo, or than if someone proclaims from on high that something should not happen. We are moderated much more by those around us than by any official diktat the state can provide. Secondly, we must consider our values. Western democracy must have clear values if it is to survive, so it shocks me that we have, for a long time, failed to articulate what they are. We need to do so urgently. I fervently believe that if we do, there will be a response. In my experience, individuals who are confident about their identity find it easier to live, to work and to co-operate with individuals with other identities. The danger in Britain is that we have, in some ways, so debased the values that underpin British society that we find it difficult to understand the values of Muslims who come here, and we fail to offer a vision of the future of British society that has the necessary appeal to persuade them to bridge the gap to us, or us to bridge the gap to them.