| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
19 July 2007 : Column 168WH—continued
“This information is not collected centrally”.—[Official Report, 11 June 2007; Vol. 462, c. 792W.]
I should like to know why not.
In the current circumstances, prisons are equally a cause of concern. The Minister, like other hon. Members, will be aware that there is a claimed link between prisons and separatist and therefore terrorist indoctrination. Richard Reid, the attempted shoe bomber, is alleged to have been radicalised in Feltham young offenders institution. Muktar Said Ibrahim, the leader of the 21/7 gang, is alleged to have been indoctrinated in Feltham or Aylesbury young offenders institutions, or in both. It is claimed that imams at both institutions were suspended in 2002 amid fears that they were preaching extremism.
Like the hon. Member for Hazel Grove, I am sorry to bombard the Minister with questions that might properly be directed at the Secretary of State for Innovation, Universities and Skills or the Home Department, but bombarding him with these questions illustrates the point that this issue goes right across Departments. I should be obliged if, as well as furnishing the right hon. Member for Rotherham with the information from the Secretary of State for Innovation, Universities and Skills that he requested, he could obtain a reply from the Home Office on some of the points that I am raising.
John Mann: It may assist the hon. Gentleman to recall the commitment from the previous Prime Minister, Mr. Blair, when the report was taken to him that there would be one Minister from one Department co-ordinating the Government response and its implementation across all Departments.
Mr. Goodman: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that intervention, because it gives me the chance to make the point that has already been made by the hon. Member for Hazel Grove: we would like a little more clarity about how exactly that mechanism will work.
It is pretty clear that there is a danger, first, that non-terrorist prisoners will be indoctrinated into anti-Semitism inter alia and, secondly, that just as Northern Ireland’s prisons during the 1970s and 1980s became universities of terrorism as republican and loyalist prisoners swapped information on experiences and planned strategy, so our own prisons have the potential to become universities of terrorism and, by extension, universities of anti-Semitism, if that is not a contradiction in terms. Anne Owers, the chief inspector of prisons, was quoted last weekend in The Observer as raising concerns about Feltham and saying that there was
“concern among some staff that a small minority of young people were being coerced into joining the Muslim faith”
and I bet that that is not the mainstream version that operates in my constituency and others.
What is the Government’s strategy for combating the growth of extremism and anti-Semitism in prisons and if they have not published it, will they do so? How many imams have been suspended from British prisons for extremism or any other reason since 9/11? Again, before
I was moved to my current duties, I asked the Home Secretary in a written question if he would name the imams who had served as prison chaplains in each year since 2001. I was told:
“There is no central record that holds this information.”—[Official Report, 5 March 2007; Vol. 457, c. 1764W.]
Mr. MacShane: I was very surprised at the reply that I received this week to a written question that I had tabled asking the Department for Communities and Local Government how many mosques there were in the UK. I was told:
“The information requested is not held centrally.”—[Official Report, 18 July 2007; Vol. 463, c. 368W.]
Frankly, all that is required is a letter to local authorities asking how many mosques they have. It is quite preposterous that the Government do not know how many mosques there are in our own country or, for that matter, churches or synagogues.
Mr. Goodman: I do not want in any way to upset the right hon. Gentleman, but I have to tell him that my recollection is that I asked a similar question and I received an answer. I will send him that answer and perhaps we will have a chance to clear this up.
Mr. MacShane: The power of the Opposition.
Mr. Goodman: I thought that the right hon. Gentleman might say something like that.
To return to the central record, I was told that it would not be appropriate to provide the names of the imams fulfilling the role of prison chaplain. I think that I can guess the reason for that—there may be legitimate security concerns—but I would just like to hear it from the Government, rather than be told:
“It would...not be appropriate to provide the names of those filling this role.”—[Official Report, 5 March 2007; Vol. 457, c. 1764W.]
Although I am a bit happier with the written answers that I am receiving from the Government than a Government Member and ex-Minister is, I am not completely satisfied.
Again, picking up the lead of the right hon. Gentleman, I shall say a few words about the Government, Muslim partners and anti-Semitism. Clearly, Governments work with faith-based organisations of all religions and none as partners, and that is entirely proper. The Muslim Council of Britain was, for a long period, the main Muslim partner of Conservative and Labour Governments. The legend is, and I have no reason to doubt it, that the MCB was partly put together by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) when he was the Home Secretary. The MCB has always opposed terrorism in Britain, but the former Communities and Local Government Secretary, who is now the Secretary of State for Transport, was none the less sufficiently concerned about separatist tendencies within the MCB to announce that the Government’s
“strategy of funding and engagement must shift significantly towards those organisations that are taking a proactive leadership role in tackling extremism”—
which, of course, includes anti-Semitism—
“and defending our shared values.”
She was also the main speaker at a Sufi Muslim Council Mawlid in the House of Commons earlier this year, which was hosted by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Mahmood) and me.
I return to Mr. Bunglawala. It is a matter of record that he has said:
“The Jews consider themselves to be God’s chosen people—although the blessed prophet Jesus called them the children of the devil—and so can do...whatever...they like”.
He is also on record as saying:
“The chairman of Carlton Communications is Michael Green of the tribe of Judah. He has joined an elite club whose members include fellow Jews Michael Grade...and Alan Yentob. The three are reported to be ‘close friends’...so that’s what they mean by a free media”.
I was going to quote from the “The Islamist”, but the ever-attentive right hon. Member for Rotherham has beaten me to it.
I gather that Mr. Bunglawala has since repented of those views, just as he has repented of his description of Osama bin Laden as a freedom fighter. None the less, all that is a reminder of how careful all political parties have to be when selecting partner organisations to work with. Does the Minister believe that the MCB is taking the necessary leadership role? Will the shift that was announced by the last Secretary of State continue under the new one?
I conclude by reflecting on the nature and implications of anti-Semitism. To the social historian, Christianity grew at least partly out of Judaism, just as—again to the social historian—Islam drew on the Jewish experience. Therefore, anti-Semitism is not simply a repudiation of one group on the ground of ethnicity, barbarous though that is and represented as it is by the obscenity of the holocaust. It is also, by implication and extension, a repudiation of the institutions, culture and values of the western world in general and, for us as parliamentarians, of Britain in particular. Those values are ultimately founded on the inviolable dignity of the human person.
I am grateful to have had the opportunity to participate in the debate, and I look forward to the Minister’s response.
4.53 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Mr. Iain Wright): It is a privilege to have you in the Chair, Sir John. It has been an interesting and excellent debate. That phrase is often bandied about in Westminster Hall, but I think that everyone who has participated would agree that it is the case.
I commend and applaud the parliamentary inquiry as an important contribution to the work to eliminate anti-Semitism. I note in particular that the membership was genuinely cross-party and that a strong consensus on ways to tackle anti-Semitism was developed through the process. Politicians are often criticised about yah-boo politics—I am conscious that two by-elections are being held today in which the Labour, Conservative and Liberal Democrat parties are trying to tear each other apart—and it is gratifying and makes me proud to be a Member of a House in which greater and nobler causes such as the elimination of bigotry and hatred are advanced. We have seen evidence of that today.
Hon. Members on both sides of the House have raised many points, which I should like to address individually. I commend the work that my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann) has done on this issue over many years, and I pay tribute to his high-quality chairmanship of the all-party group. I am pleased that he recognised the importance that the Government have placed on racism in general and anti-Semitism in particular by providing a formal response to the parliamentary inquiry. Hon. Members have said that we must all, in all our lives, try to change bigotry and hatred. That is important. The good publicity that came out of the report’s publication in September and, hopefully, the publicity that will emanate from today’s debate will help to push that culture in trying to tackle anti-Semitism head on and ensure that it is not tolerated in this country.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw talked about civic society and football clubs. I pay tribute to the “Let’s Kick Racism Out of Football” campaign of the past few years, which has played an enormous part in reducing levels of tension in football. We are not there yet—far from it—but it has made a valuable contribution. He and other hon. Members also mentioned universities, which I shall spend some time on later.
My hon. Friend asked specific questions, to which I shall now respond. He asked which Minister will have responsibility for matters of anti-Semitism and co-ordinating the Government’s role on that issue. It was made clear to me before the debate, and abundantly clear in the debate, how important hon. Members feel it is to have a clear, single point of reference—a single Minister—to co-ordinate activity on this issue across Government. I understand that no decision has been made on that yet, but the Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Mr. Dhanda), is in charge of faith and cohesion, and it is likely that he will be in charge of taking forward the elimination of anti-Semitism. I pledge to take a personal interest in the matter. I am proud to be a former chair of Labour Friends of Israel, and I shall tell the Department that there is an urgent need for a single point of contact, and ensure that the matter is resolved as quickly as possible.
John Mann: May I make the point gently to the Minister that there might be significant disquiet should we be in recess without a clear point of contact?
Mr. Wright: As I said, I am aware of the strength and depth of feeling on that. I know that we are a week away from recess and I shall endeavour to ensure that the matter is resolved as quickly as possible.
Mr. Boswell: I accept the spirit of the Minister’s assurances. Whoever the single point of contact is, it is vital that that person chases up his or her counterparts through Whitehall, because we need to ensure that the whole system is working, not just the relationship with his Department.
Mr. Wright: My hon. Friend—I make that mistake deliberately—makes an important point, and I shall take it back to the Department.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw made some points about the task group, including about the frequency of its meetings and how it is going to move forward. The task group, which consists of Jewish stakeholders and representatives of various Departments, meets four times a year. The first meeting was on 20 June. I undertake that the Government will give a progress report one year after the publication of the Government’s response, which will be March 2008, regarding how we are moving forward. He also asked about the £20,000 budget for promoting the group’s work. That money is still available and will continue to be. I hope that he can take some reassurance from that.
The hon. Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell), who is a decent and civilised man for whom I have much respect, said that we should set an example. That has been one of the themes of the debate, and it must be pushed forward. If we walk on by, tolerate and are indifferent to the idea of anti-Semitism, that is almost as bad—it might be worse—than landing a punch. We need to address that, and I pay tribute to his comments.
The hon. Gentleman particularly mentioned setting an example in respect of universities. I agree with his point that it would be wrong for Government to start dictating what can be discussed in universities, as that is a dangerous path. When the Minister for Lifelong Learning, Further and Higher Education visited Israel on 9 June, he made the Government’s unequivocal position clear: we condemn the proposed boycott of Israeli goods. I hope that the hon. Members who are present can take some comfort from that. What was said was damning and unequivocal.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Mr. MacShane) mentioned—in his usual high-quality and eloquent way, which I can never equal—the horrific bigotry that continues. He mentioned Islamic anti-Semitism. It is odd, if not disturbing and distressing, that a beautiful and peaceful religion such as Islam can be distorted with such hatred in the way that such a small minority have done. He gave striking and vivid examples of Jew hating and anti-Semitism. When he was talking, I remembered the comments made a year or two ago by Iran’s President Ahmadinejad that Israel is a blot on the landscape and that it should be wiped off the face of the earth. The fact that a state in the United Nations can say that of another and not receive overwhelming global condemnation is astonishing. We should be pushing, both inside and outside this House, to rail against such a comment and against the fact that Tehran can host a holocaust denial conference. We should be doing a lot more.
One of today’s themes has been that if we do not challenge, we implicitly accept the idea that anti-Semitism is acceptable. I can give clear assurances that the Government will not tolerate such a stance. The hon. Member for Eastleigh (Chris Huhne) and my hon. Friend the Member for Worsley (Barbara Keeley) mentioned funding for security of Jewish buildings. The Government are happy to provide advice to organisations and to industry about protective security—that is usually arranged through the National Security Advice Centre—but we have a policy whereby we do not fund the provision of protective security for organisations or industry. That is true not only in respect of Jewish groups, but across the board in respect of different racial and social groups. Our strategy is based on making advice available,
should it be requested, free of charge, but it is up to the recipients whether or not they take it, and if they do, they pay for the work.
Barbara Keeley: I want to emphasise that the point that I was making was about the protection of children at schools. I see a difference between the average buildings—community buildings of a variety of sorts—and the protection of children at school. Does the Minister think that there is a difference between schools and other community buildings?
Mr. Wright: My hon. Friend makes a powerful point. I cannot pledge anything today, but I shall take her comments away and see whether anything can be done, because she raises a valid point. I do not want to give false hope. It is right that the Government have a policy on this, because if we fund one group, we would have to fund all, and that could prove problematic.
On the wider point of the security of Jewish buildings, the Metropolitan police’s rainbow team, which involves uniformed policing and the response to counter-terrorism, has been working with the Community Security Trust, which is a registered charity that is working to ensure the safety and security of the Jewish community, over the past year on the security of Jewish buildings. The CST has identified 300 buildings across London about which it has security concerns. The rainbow team has worked with the CST to quantify the threat and risk by examining objective factors, such as whether a building has underground parking, CCTV or bollards outside it. As a result of that exercise, some buildings have been identified to undergo a crime reduction survey, while others have been put on a frequent visit programme. Such visits are undertaken by safer neighbourhood teams. In response to the concerns of my hon. Friend the Member for Worsley, I should say that perhaps that could be done in conjunction with Jewish schools. I shall examine the issue further.
The hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Andrew Stunell) mentioned the Government’s plans to ensure that the police should record anti-Semitic crimes more fully. That was an excellent point. The Home Office and the Association of Chief Police Officers have given an undertaking that all forces will record anti-Semitic crimes by 2008-09. I hope that he can take reassurance from that.
Andrew Stunell: Will the Minister clarify whether that specifically includes anti-Semitic crimes as a sub-group of racial attacks? We need to be clear that we are separating out the information that is available.
Mr. Wright: I understand that that will be the case.
I thank the hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr. Goodman) for his presence, although I was expecting the Deputy Leader of the House of Commons, my hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Helen Goodman). That is a private joke from our consideration of the Finance Bill—I shall not bore you with the details, Sir John.
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |