(Stoke-on-Trent North)
(Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the Khan Review on threats to
social cohesion and democratic resilience.
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Sir Mark. I am
grateful for the opportunity to talk about this important topic.
The UK's democracy is the oldest and most established in the
world. We have set an example for countless countries to follow.
Brave men and women from these islands and the Commonwealth
fought and died in defence of the values that have shaped our
great nation. However, as the Khan review sets out, we cannot get
complacent. Advancing our democracy and ensuring that it is safe
requires constant vigilance.
In the United Kingdom, Europe, the United States and further
afield, democracy sadly continues to be under threat. Elected
representatives in this country are being threatened like never
before. This year we have seen MPs from across the political
divide intimidated and threatened by extremists intent on tearing
apart our democratic framework. Very tragically, in the past
decade alone we have seen two Members of Parliament, and Sir , killed by the far right and an
Islamist terrorist respectively.
Across the western world we have seen a shocking rise in
antisemitism and anti-Jewish hate in the wake of the 7 October
terrorist attacks committed by Hamas. In the UK specifically, the
House of Commons Library notes that police forces in Manchester,
Yorkshire, the west midlands and Merseyside reported an increase
in antisemitism. I am horrified by reports that the Jewish
community are scared to visit the capital city of this country
and that Jewish schoolchildren are hiding badges on their school
uniforms for fear of being discriminated against.
In Stoke-on-Trent we have seen very real threats to our own
democracy and social cohesion. At a recent fundraising event for
Stoke-on-Trent and Staffordshire's Conservative police and crime
commissioner candidate , protestors hijacked a local
Conservative party dinner in Shelton. Some protestors were known
to have been supporters of Hizb ut-Tahrir, which the Government
have now rightly proscribed as a terrorist group. They managed to
enter the facility, threatening local activists and behaving
aggressively in the presence of children of the attendees. That
is a clear example of malign actors threatening social cohesion.
They are capitalising on tensions and unrest caused by events in
the middle east to push their dangerous and divisive agenda at
home.
As the Khan review points out, “freedom-restricting harassment”
is threatening social cohesion and testing our democracy like
never before. When the Prime Minister stood on the steps of
Downing Street on 1 March this year, he made it clear that we
have seen
“a shocking increase in extremist disruption and
criminality.”
That is why the Khan review is both timely and necessary. The
geopolitical environment has become increasingly unstable and
unpredictable, which exacerbates the threat of social media to
social cohesion. The tragic events of 7 October, when Hamas
committed the worst pogrom since the holocaust, have presented us
with an immense challenge.
On reading the Khan review, I was deeply concerned that the
continuing activity of far-right and Islamist groups poses
serious challenges to cohesion when they capitalise on the
backdrop of geopolitical instability to stir division. These
malign groups have sophisticated networks. Community spaces such
as gyms are used as a recruiting ground, and vulnerable young
people are targeted. If we want to tackle these challenges head
on, we must be prepared to consider the findings of the Khan
review and work constructively to deliver social cohesion once
again.
On the steps of 10 Downing Street in March, the Prime Minister
stated:
“Immigrants who have come here have integrated and
contributed.”
I see that at first hand in Stoke-on-Trent, where we have a
thriving migrant community who work in our NHS, schools and other
civic institutions. However, our city's multi-ethnic and
multifaith community is being deliberately undermined by forces
intent on tearing us apart.
Far-right organisations play on people's real concerns about the
economic impacts of migration to make the case for their
narrow-minded and nationalistic worldview. In the same way,
radical Islamist groups will use fear to stoke up division in
favour of their nihilistic worldview and argue that institutions
set out to undermine minorities' personal freedoms and individual
liberties. Soaring immigration levels currently make it virtually
impossible for people to properly integrate into British society,
and with huge unrest in our streets we cannot build a more
cohesive society built around British values like democracy, the
rule of law, respect, tolerance and individual liberty unless we
control the number of people coming in from overseas.
As the Khan review points out, cities like Stoke-on-Trent will
fall through the gap if there is no coherent approach to national
security. That demonstrates the urgent need for stronger borders,
which will help to facilitate social integration and stop malign
groups exploiting the immigration question to push their divisive
agenda. In April 2023, the deputy director of Prevent, Katherine
Elsmore, informed me that Stoke-on-Trent City Council would no
longer receive money to deliver Prevent strategies in
Stoke-on-Trent; the Khan report suggests it would be useful to
revisit that decision. My hon. Friends the Members for
Stoke-on-Trent South () and for Stoke-on-Trent
Central () and I have written jointly to the Home Secretary to
make that case.
While I have time, it is worth while to put on the record what we
believe to be the arguments for reintroducing Prevent funding in
the city. First, as outlined in Dr Khan's review, the far right
puts social cohesion at serious risk in the city. Groups such as
Combat 18 and Stoke-on-Trent Infidels always seek to exploit
domestic and international instability to suit their own ends. In
2002, the city elected its first councillor from the banned
far-right British National party, and by 2009 had nine BNP
councillors. I am proud that my hon. Friend the Member for
Stoke-on-Trent South led the fightback against them in the city,
to offer a true centre-right conservatism option on the table.
That led to the final expulsion of those extremists, and
therefore allowed proper centre-right debate, alongside our
colleagues in the Labour and Liberal Democrat parties and others,
who are much more in the mainstream of party politics.
Alongside the clear threat of far-right extremism, radical
Islamist groups also have a footprint in the city. The starkest
reminder of that to me was when Usman Khan stabbed Jack Merritt
and Saskia Jones on London Bridge near Fishmongers' Hall in
November 2019, tragically taking their innocent lives. Sadly,
that terrorist was born and grew up in Stoke-in-Trent and
Staffordshire, where he had links to Islamist groups such as
al-Qaeda and al-Muhajiroun, which has close links to Anjem
Choudary, the face of militant Islamism and Islamic extremism in
Britain. Given that 80% of counter-terrorism police networks'
live investigations are of Islamist terrorism, it is vital that
we remain vigilant to the threat of other people who could be
influenced by divisive and malign actors.
Earlier in the year, I welcomed the Home Secretary's proscription
of Hizb ut-Tahrir as a terrorist organisation. That vile
antisemitic organisation encourages terrorism and praises the
abhorrent terrorist attacks by Hamas on 7 October. Given that
that vile group has a strong footprint in Stoke-on-Trent, where
it runs local gyms and community centres, I fully support the
Prime Minister's decision to ban it. Sadly, that heinous group
seeks to use events in the middle east to argue against values
that underpin the UK as the world's most successful multi-faith
and multi-ethnic society.
To me, all that suggests that Prevent should review its decision
to suspend funding for Stoke-on-Trent, because there is a clear
threat to democracy and the rule of law from malign actors, from
the far right and radical Islam, that needs attention in our
city. Given that Stoke-on-Trent North, Kidsgrove and Talke have
historically had some of the lowest turn-out rates for general
elections in the UK, it is of paramount importance to help to
ensure that people have trust in democracy, as well as in those
who are elected to represent them. In part, that is about core
issues such as levelling up so that people in our industrial
heartlands no longer feel they are being left behind when
competing with other areas, like London and the south-east.
The Khan review makes it clear that the financial vulnerability
of one in five councils across the UK means that
“the potential impact on social cohesion in the short and long
term could be destabilising to our country.”
Without doubt, that makes the case for levelling up, in respect
of which we need continued investment, as we have seen recently
in the Potteries, to improve socioeconomic conditions and
regenerate areas that fall behind. Alongside boosting local
economies and getting more people into work, we need to ensure
that we have systems in place to stop people being influenced by
malign groups that are intent on undermining our way of life.
The Khan review makes it clear that prevention is
“far more effective than cure”.
Given the unprecedented threats posed to democracy and social
resilience, I urge the Minister to ensure that Prevent is aware
of the new challenges that Stoke-on-Trent faces, so that we can
help to promote social cohesion in the Potteries. The review
makes it clear that it is essential have a co-ordinated approach
to support vulnerable people in areas such as Stoke-on-Trent.
That involves rejuvenating the local economy so that people feel
the Government are supporting them, and having adequate systems
in place to ensure that people from all faiths and ethnic groups
believe in our democracy and play a role in it.
2.39pm
(Strangford) (DUP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Mark. I thank
the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent North () for leading this debate
on an issue that is so important in modern society. It is also
important that the lines on unity and solidarity do not become
blurred.
I am blessed to represent my constituency of Strangford. We are a
multicultural community. We have welcomed many people from
Latvia, Lithuania and Poland, and in particular from Ukraine, as
well as from Bangladesh, over the last number of years. Also,
under the Government's scheme for Syrian refugees we took in a
number of Syrian families. Those families have integrated into
Newtownards with a real positivity, and the people of Ards and
Strangford have embraced them as well.
Last Friday night I was invited to attend an event in St
Patrick's hall, which is a Roman Catholic chapel hall up on the
north shore in Newtownards. There is a very strong Indian
diaspora in my area. I never realised how big it was until Friday
night. More than 100 people are part of it, all of whom live in
Newtownards. Every one of those people is here with a visa and
the status that they have to have, and they contribute to our
health sector in the hospitals in Ards and throughout Ulster,
including the Royal Victoria Hospital in Belfast. I make that
comment because I see lots of positivity at the same time; it is
not all negative.
I will give three examples. They do not necessarily embrace my
constituency but do embrace the situation in Northern Ireland. I
think they clearly illustrate what the hon. Gentleman referred to
and the problems that arise. But last Friday was a wonderful
occasion for us all, including elected representatives, to come
together and have a really good and fun time. I cannot remember
an occasion when I have laughed as much in a long time. It was
wonderful and that is what communities can do if they come
together.
At the same time, across the UK and indeed globally there are so
many democracies and communities that face internal polarisation,
so it is great that we can look at the Khan report and apply it
to modern society, in order to assess what more can be done to
ensure that all opinions are represented.
A large majority of the public—85%—believe that
freedom-restricting harassment currently occurs in the UK, with
60% believing that the problem is worse than it was five years
ago. I see a change in society and I am not quite sure whether
covid was the main reason, but it was certainly part of it, when
people were able to make comments at a distance, and interaction
and social engagement were lost to a certain degree. Some 44% of
people have witnessed freedom-restricting harassment online, and
44% say they have witnessed it in person, so there is something
difficult in society. The issue the hon. Gentleman has brought
forward is about social cohesion and democratic resilience, and
it is really important that we try to encourage those things and
do not dwell on the divisions.
There is absolutely no doubt that social media plays a massive
role in the opinions that are gathered and eventually expressed,
which often provoke controversy in society, and there is no doubt
that a conversation must be had regarding people's
disillusionment with democracy and about how we can restore
confidence in it. I think that is what the hon. Gentleman is
seeking to achieve. Hopefully after the shadow Minister—the hon.
Member for Blaydon ()—and others have spoken, the
Minister can give us some encouragement about the Government's
way forward to try to make the situation better and to engage
people in society.
We had a debate in Westminster Hall yesterday on assisted
dying—or assisted suicide as I call it, and as many others also
call it, by the way. I have a very clear opinion on that; other
people have a very different but clear opinion on it. What I
think we need, and what I always seek to achieve, is that we at
least respect each other's viewpoints. “Agree to differ” is the
terminology that I often use, because it is not always good to
dwell on the things that we disagree on, and we must at least be
respectful and understanding.
There are two main dimensions to social cohesion: the sense of
belonging in a community and the relationships with others in
that community. The event on Friday night was an example of what
we can do if we commit ourselves. There has been a natural shift
in societal norms, which is welcome, but those who hold what are
seen as traditional opinions or conservative views, like me and
many of my constituents, feel that they no longer have a right to
express them—that it is no longer acceptable or welcome. I have
tried all my life to be respectful of other people. I do it in
this House—I never attack anybody in this Chamber or the main
Chamber. I try to respect people, and even if I do not agree with
them and they do not agree with me, we have an understanding of
how to do things.
Everyone has the right to express their belief in a rational and
respectful manner. In Northern Ireland, we recently discussed
changes to the relationships and sex education curriculum. The
legislation was passed here, and the Northern Ireland Secretary
then reflected that in Northern Ireland. We expressed a lot of
concern about how that was done, but now that the Assembly is up
and running again we can, I hope, move forward. Last week, we
discussed changes to the RSE curriculum proposed by the Alliance
party, which many parents feel incredibly unsettled about; so
many people have written or emailed me, expressing their
concerns. A meeting was held to inform and discuss the issue with
those parents, and Eóin Tennyson MLA of the Alliance party
summarised the Let Kids Be Kids campaign as a
“disgusting dog-whistle to the far-right”—
a disgraceful comment. We are not, and my constituents are not,
on the far right. They are parents who have concerns about their
children's education and teaching, and care about our opinions. I
want to put that on the record, because the number of parents who
have emailed me to express their concerns has been
incredible.
I had a staff member sit in on the meeting and listen to every
word that was said, and I can assure the public that those who
have such concerns are not far right. They are parents, they are
carers, who are invested in protecting the innocence of children,
as is their right. I would expect every parent to do that with
zest and enthusiasm, as they have a commitment to protect their
children. The fact that freedom of speech allows those people to
be called far right shows how far wrong we have gone.
The threat from extremism has been growing for many years, and
what has been described as the pervasiveness of extremist
ideology in the aftermath of the terrorist attacks on Israel on 7
October 2023 has highlighted the need for further action. At the
outbreak of the Israel-Palestine conflict, I received calls and
emails to my office about an incident that occurred at the city
hall in Belfast. I remember it well. I reported it to the police;
I was on to the police on a number of occasions about it. I say
this because it is an example of how evil and wicked some people
are in their intentions. There were pictures and videos going
around on social media of Lasair Dhearg activists—those of a
nationalist opinion—projecting on to city hall an image of Hamas
fighters paragliding into Israel, alongside the words “smash the
Zionists”. I think it was wrong, and I made a number of
complaints about it. I contacted the Police Service of Northern
Ireland to ensure that they took action to detain those involved
and ensure that those who displayed those inflammatory comments
on Queen's University, the city hall in Belfast and other places
were held accountable for their actions.
Some people displayed on the city hall the statement “From the
river to the sea”. We all know what that means. That means death
to Jewish people—death to Israeli people. That, I believe, is
inflammatory; I believe that the police needed to take action. To
be fair, the police did immediately take action, but the fact
that it was allowed to happen in the first place—to the
annoyance, the anger of many of my constituents who were in
Belfast doing their shopping, and other people from my party as
well—was outrageous.
I raised that issue with the PSNI, and a section of the Jewish
community contacted local representatives stating that the
antisemitic language frightened them. So that is the society we
have. When the hon. Gentleman brought forward the debate, he did
so for a purpose: to factually and evidentially record the things
that are happening. I have recorded those two things because I
think it is important from the point of view of how my
constituents feel.
To conclude, those are just a few examples of how democratic
resilience can be improved—yes, it can be improved—and how we can
improve social cohesion to ensure that people feel protected
within their communities. I look to the Minister, who is a
genuine man and who has the same impression as the rest of us, to
try to make people's lives better and to have a society where we
can live together in such a way that we do not have to fight or
be antagonised. I look to him for the reassurance that he will do
his best, as I know he will, to ensure that all forms of rational
and respectable opinion are upheld within society. I look forward
to the contributions by the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for
Blaydon, who is a dear friend of mine—she knows that—and others
to the debate.
2.51pm
(Stoke-on-Trent South)
(Con)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Sir Mark, and to
follow the hon. Member for Strangford (). I warmly congratulate my hon. Friend and city
colleague the Member for Stoke-on-Trent North () on securing this
important debate.
The Khan review is welcome, and we can all be grateful to Dame
Sara Khan for the considered work she has done. I am grateful to
her for taking the time to visit Stoke-on-Trent and speak with
community groups and various organisations in our city. Also, she
has spent a considerable amount of time meeting MPs, including
myself, for which I am grateful. She has helped shine a light on
some of the serious challenges we face around social cohesion and
countering extremism. There is much to agree with in her report
and much to support in her recommendations, but there are also
points that need to be raised and highlighted for the sake of
further clarity, and that is what I intend to do in my
remarks.
I echo my hon. Friend's words about the foolhardy cessation of
funding for Prevent and its work in our city of Stoke-on-Trent.
That followed the previous removal of counter-extremism support.
The report makes it clear that:
“Without such support, places like Stoke fall through the gaps
despite the permissive extremism environment and harm it is
causing to the city.”
It is not nice to have to say that our city still needs the close
attention of Prevent. It would be wonderful to say that Prevent's
job was done and dusted, but the reality is that there are those
in the city who reject our liberal, western, democratic values.
Worst of all, there are those who have been prepared to act on
their hatred by engaging in, or attempting to engage in,
murderous terror. I am very concerned about the robustness of the
decisions taken by the Home Office and how it is prioritising
resources across the country.
Sadly, we have seen both Islamic extremism and far-right
extremism in Stoke-on-Trent. Hizb ut-Tahrir and al-Muhajiroun
have been active in some communities in Stoke-on-Trent,
radicalising young people and attempting to spread their perverse
view of religion. That is why it is welcome to see the Government
take action recently to proscribe Hizb ut-Tahrir, and I hope they
will continue to closely monitor those who are now seeking to get
around the proscription and continuing such activities under
another guise.
There is also a history in the city of far-right activism, with
the BNP, the English Defence League and a number of other
organisations that my hon. Friend mentioned, which has in some
cases resulted in the permeation of more serious radicalisation.
In 2010, we saw attempts to blow up the City Central Mosque.
Fortunately, those attempts were stopped, but that demonstrates
an undercurrent of extremism that the far right has
propagated.
Concerningly, we have seen attempts from extremist groups to
undermine and control our democratic systems. Cases have been
reported of Islamic extremists attempting to discourage
participation and interfere with elections. With the far right,
as my hon. Friend mentioned, we saw the BNP get up to nine
councillors in 2008-9. The reason for their electoral success was
their exploiting the political vacuum left by a declining Labour
party. Many hundreds, indeed thousands, of voters in
Stoke-on-Trent felt that voting BNP was the only way to make the
main political parties listen to those voters' mainstream
concerns. Of course, the BNP was only too keen to take advantage
of that situation. Our city felt forgotten and left behind.
People felt that they were being told they were wrong to be proud
to be British. They felt that a metropolitan and globalist London
elite was sneering at traditional working-class communities. I am
glad to say that we have won those voters back to mainstream
politics, and we must keep those voters with mainstream concerns
within mainstream politics.
I know that Dame Sara has expressed concern about the
mainstreaming of extremism. There are concerns that engaging with
extremist groups or individuals gives them legitimacy. She also
highlighted a number of serious concerns about
freedom-restricting harassment. It is particularly concerning
that the report suggests that this problem is getting worse,
stating that 60% of people feel that the problem is worse than it
was five years ago.
I would like also to see more of a focus on what, for want of a
better turn of phrase, I am going to call “extreming of the
mainstream”. This is something that my hon. Friend the Member for
Strangford, I think, was touching on, where we see the alienation
of hard-working, patriotic communities. It is not extreme to want
to hear “Rule, Britannia” at the Last Night of the Proms, or to
sing it when and wherever you like in the UK. It is not extreme
to fly the St George's cross or to have an England flag tattoo.
Rather, it is extreme to want to ban “Rule, Britannia”. It is
extreme to want to ban the flag of England. And yet we all know
that there are attempts to chip, chip away at our shared icons,
heroes and ways of life.
The same can be said for religion. It should not be considered
extreme to have strongly held religious beliefs, whether
Christian, Muslim or of any other religion. Most faith is about
peace, tolerance and respecting others. We have often seen faith
communities throughout north Staffordshire come together in the
toughest of times, when this cohesion is challenged, resisting
fundamentalists and calling out those who attempt to cause and
sow division.
I am glad that the Cass report has also brought public debate
about life-altering medical interventions for minors back to the
mainstream place of sanity and biological objectivity. It was
beyond bizarre that it took legal action to determine that Maya
Forstater was worthy of respect in a democratic society for her
perfectly mainstream recognition of biological reality. That is
an area in which I would like further clarity. The Secretary of
State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities has already said
that of course “gender-critical” and, indeed, non-voluntary trans
activist voices would not be affected by the definition of
extremism. However, if a new body is created to report back on
extremism annually, and to promote cohesion and so on, what is to
stop that body becoming another national institution that is
captured by those with extreme views of their own, which it wants
to present and push as being mainstream and anti-hate? I hope we
can hear how that will be safeguarded against.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent North said, the
UK is one of the most open, multicultural and freedom-loving
countries in the world. The rule of law, religious freedom and
free speech are some of our core democratic British values.
However, we cannot take these values for granted, especially at a
time when we see these values under increasing threat around the
world. Democracy is fragile. We must redouble our efforts to
protect our shared values and democratic rights, and we must see
robust action against those who threaten to undermine or suppress
our way of life—something I have made very clear to Staffordshire
police and others.
In conclusion, I welcome the important review and I look forward
to hearing further from the Minister how the next steps will be
taken. We must be wary of extremes, particularly those that bring
violence with them, and we must also be wary of attempts to paint
the mainstream as extreme, because doing so pushes mainstream
voters into the arms of extremists.
2.59pm
(Bradford West) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Mark. I
congratulate the hon. Member on Stoke-on-Trent North () for securing this
important debate.
Our democracy faces significant challenges threatening social
cohesion and wellbeing, with the rise of extremes on all sides,
as the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent South () outlined. The rampant
spread of dangerous conspiracy theories and disinformation,
alongside unregulated technological advances in artificial
intelligence, pose a direct threat to our democratic ability and
stability. Additionally, as we have seen in more recent times,
politics and politicians at large, across the globe, have
utilised populism to boost their own political gains at the
expense of minority communities and those on the receiving end of
their political attacks.
The Khan review uncovers a phenomenon of freedom-restricting
harassment, where individuals are coerced into self-censorship
through abuse and intimidation. That harassment is reported as
suppressing the freedom of expression of individuals. Eighty-five
per cent of the public acknowledge its presence in the UK and 60%
perceive it to be worsening over the years. The report highlights
a link between the erosion of democratic resilience and the
absence of a national strategic framework.
The recommendations in the report for protecting victims of
harassment and incitement are welcome and to be encouraged, as is
the recommendation for a new independent office for social
cohesion that genuinely works, in good faith, to balance the
rights and freedoms of all with the need for social cohesion
across the United Kingdom. In addition, schools should be safe
havens for learning, free from intimidation. I therefore also
support the review's proposal for buffer zones around schools, to
curb protests and provide support for staff and students.
However, while aspects of the report are welcome, it completely
ignores the role that the Government are playing in breaking down
social cohesion in this country.
The recent statement by the Secretary of State, , on a proposed new definition
of extremism is concerning, particularly due to the approach that
he presents, which targets Muslim groups. On one hand, the
Government acknowledge there is a problem with social cohesion
and people policing their ideas and opinions. On the other hand,
we have a Secretary of State targeting Muslim organisations and
dangerously labelling them as extremists without an
evidence-based approach or any right to appeal.
In addition, the Secretary of State fuelled speculation in the
media that he would label the Muslim Council of Britain as an
extremist organisation. He also took away funding from the Inter
Faith Network and its work because a member of tits board was
linked to the Muslim Council of Britain. The irony is that an
interfaith charity that champions the work of social cohesion had
to close down because the Government ended its funding—the same
Government who acknowledge we have an issue with social
cohesion.
It gets worse. The Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and
Technology used her position to target a professor over her
support for Palestine by wrongfully accusing her of extremism.
The result was the taxpayer footing a bill for £34,000 to pay for
the price of the right hon. Lady's libellous attack. Let us not
forget that a former Home Secretary tried to silence hundreds of
thousands of genuine people demonstrating for a ceasefire in
Palestine by labelling the protests as “hate marches”.
Do the Government want to be part of a solution, fixing social
cohesion, or part of the problem? The evidence is stacked on the
latter. It is difficult to look at top Conservative figures today
and not find someone who is actively working to damage social
cohesion in this country. Seriously—how can we advocate for
social cohesion in the UK with as the Conservative candidate
for Mayor of London? The Conservative nominee for Mayor of London
embodies a hard-right politics profoundly disconnected from the
essence of London, its diversity and its values. She endorses
Donald Trump, and . She perceives London's
diversity as a weakness. spouts Islamophobic tropes that
have stirred up division and hatred against Muslims. She likes
tweets about Enoch Powell, and a tweet by Katie Hopkins
describing as “the Mayor of
Londonistan”.
is actively involved in
Facebook groups sharing antisemitic, white supremacist content
and racially charged threats against . That is the Tory mayoral
candidate for London. The election is only a few days away, yet
the Government want to lecture people on social cohesions and the
impact it has on society, and the Tory candidate for London
epitomises the very definition of divisiveness.
I am a proud Bradfordian, a proud Muslim, and a proud Member of
the British Parliament. When we talk about community cohesion,
there are vulnerabilities that Dame Sara Khan references—the
issues of job security, and the issues that make communities feel
threatened, and people feel otherised. These issues require
people to know that they matter, that they belong, and that
people care. Instead, what we have is senior people like the
former Home Secretary and the former Prime Minister who compared
women to letterboxes and other things. As a result of his column,
there has been a 335% increase in attacks against Muslims. I
associate myself with the comments that the hon. Member for
Stoke-on-Trent North made about antisemitism, but I add to that
the increase in Islamophobia. That is led right from the top.
When we are elected, we as politicians are expected to lead with
authenticity, with congruence, with leadership that unites
people. The definition of cohesion is sticking together, working
together, tackling problems, and mutual support for positive
futures. That is the definition of community cohesion, but is
that the rhetoric we get from the Tory Benches? No, it is not.
The Government need to understand the role they have played to
get to the point where this report was even needed. I have been
in this House since 2015— I just started my 10th year —and it is
a slippery slope every year, pandering to hard-right narratives,
with Members of Parliament having to apologise to the Leader of
the Opposition because they have retweeted far-right
conspiracies.
I get it—I completely get it. I understand why MPs ask whether a
career in politics is worth it, because of the abuse we get.
People are stepping down in this place, but that did not start on
7 October, and the conversation about the ceasefire—that started
when Brexit was happening. That started when people in this place
and the media were perpetuating headlines about people being
traitors, and there was no response from the Government then.
There was no condemnation then, when all those things were
happening, yet here we are, with this whole review, and the
Minister will stand up and say how committed the Government are,
when they cannot tackle the rot from their own Front Benchers to
temper their language or epitomise leadership, walk the walk and
show what it looks like to lead. We certainly have not had that
from the Government.
I will simply finish on this. It is not just about the issue of
the mayoral election going on in London right now. Social
cohesion is imperative for Great Britain, but that means
leadership, and calling out people like the former Prime Minister
who rubbed shoulders in America with Steve Bannon, who said,
“Tommy Robinson is our hero”. Tommy Robinson is putting out
videos of him fixing his tie in the House of Lords—people like
that, entertained in our Palaces! That is why we have to fix
social cohesion. The message comes right from the top, from the
media, and from social media platforms. I am afraid that this
Government certainly do not do that. It is important that the
Government learn the lesson, lead by example, and do not preach
something that they do not practise themselves.
Sir (in the Chair)
Thank you. Before I bring in the Front Bench spokespeople, I
remind Members that referring to other Members by name is not
correct. They should use their title, ministerial positions or
whatever role they occupy in the House.
3.09pm
(Blaydon) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Mark, and
I thank the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent North () for securing this
important debate.
Dame Sara Khan's report does not make for easy reading, but it is
vital that we tackle extremism and radicalisation head on. I hope
the Government will take this opportunity to reflect, and to
consider how we can work constructively to build more cohesive,
resilient communities. At its heart, this is about how we as a
society live well together. It is not only a matter of security,
but a matter of public health, and speaks to our fundamental
wellbeing.
I thank all those who have contributed to the debate. We heard
from the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (), who talked about the
importance of the review; from the hon. Member for Strangford
(), who looked the experience of his own constituency,
and talked about the importance of democratic resilience and
social cohesion; and from the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent
South (), who also talked about the
Khan report and the situation in his constituency. Finally, we
heard a very spirited speech from my hon. Friend the Member for
Bradford West (), who talked about the importance
of language and how people speak about things, as well as the
need for a national strategy. She also discussed Islamophobia,
and, in a very passionate speech, said that the Government needed
to walk the walk.
To say that this has been a challenging period for our
communities would be an understatement. We continue to see the
impact of the ongoing conflict in Gaza on community relations.
Meanwhile people are finding it tough to make ends meet, and our
public services have been struggling. The Khan review's position
on this point is clear: these difficulties risk undermining our
social contract, fuelling disillusionment with our democratic
system, and allowing extremism, disinformation, and conspiracy
theories to take root. The House can, and should, work together
to tackle these serious issues, and the Minister can be assured
that my party is ready and willing to engage in good faith with
these discussions. We are here to represent our constituents, and
we should come together to reject extremists who seek to
undermine these efforts.
That involves recognising the shortcomings in the Government's
work on this to date. As the Khan review clearly outlines, those
shortcomings have left local authorities to deal with the fallout
following the most challenging incidents of community conflict.
We must remember that it is councils that are dealing with these
issues on the frontline, whether that is fulfilling their
statutory duties by organising community safety partnerships and
safeguarding boards, or developing more bespoke partnerships in
response to local issues. The unprecedented levels of demand that
councils currently work with have made it more difficult to carry
out the broader upstream work that is desperately needed.
Meanwhile many councillors face appalling levels of abuse and
harassment simply for serving their communities. We heard about
the impact on Members of Parliament, too, as they go about their
work, and how sadly, in two cases, Members have lost their lives.
It is imperative that central Government work as a supportive
partner with local government on this, providing the space for
local authorities and other agencies to come together to share
best practice. The reality, as Khan says, is that
“there is no strategic approach within Whitehall's machinery to
deal with these threats to social cohesion and our country's
democratic resilience.”
We have had review after review, and still no sense of where
tensions are, how to prevent them, or how to rebuild after
conflict. The constant political turbulence certainly has not
helped matters. The integrated communities action plan has had
some success, but of 70 commitments listed in it, just 14 have
been delivered. We were told that the cross-ministerial group
responsible would meet every six months, but in the end, it met
only once. This is part of a wider pattern: we are still waiting
for an update on the hate crimes strategy, promised in 2020, and
it seems that the anti-Muslim hatred working group and the
antisemitism working group are no longer meeting. I hope that
Sara Khan's review gives the Government an opportunity to refocus
and demonstrate the political will needed to make lasting
preventive change. Actions speak louder than words. We need to
see that this is made a priority.
The review also invokes the Government's record on housing asylum
seekers and the Home Office's failure to communicate effectively
with local authorities before placing asylum seekers in their
areas. Shockingly, some local authorities told the reviewer that
far-right groups knew about local asylum hotels before they did.
We desperately need a new approach, which has to include new
strategies on counter-extremism and community cohesion. The
Secretary of State has said that the Government will be
publishing a more detailed action plan, which will include
funding commitments to support organisations on the ground
working to build community resilience. I look forward to hearing
about the progress made on that, but in the meantime, I want to
ask the Minister the following questions.
First, the review is clear that we must take a more proactive
approach to community cohesion. That includes learning more about
what makes local areas particularly vulnerable or resilient to
extremism. Will the Minister say what his Department is doing to
address those knowledge gaps? The recruitment of a new
Islamophobia adviser continues to be in doubt. Will the Minister
shed some light on any progress made on that issue?
Technological innovations have created further challenges in
maintaining cohesive communities. What steps is the Minister's
Department taking to tackle new forms of radicalisation,
including radicalisation that takes place online? The tensions
that we are currently seeing are playing out at all levels of our
society, including in our classrooms. What discussions has the
Minister had with colleagues in the Department for Education
about providing the support that teachers need to manage
difficult conversations? Finally, can he tell us whether the
Government have given up on refreshing the hate crime action
plan?
Social cohesion is not a “nice to have”. If we do not show
leadership and support local authorities to address concerns
within their communities, extremists will fill the void. We must
start thinking about how we approach proper preventive work that
engages communities, rather than waiting for flashpoints to
occur. I hope we can work together on these most fundamental
issues.
3.18pm
The Minister for Housing, Planning and Building Safety ()
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Mark. I
begin by thanking all hon. Members. In particular, I thank my
hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent North () for securing the debate,
for opening it in such a temperate and balanced fashion, and for
asking some immensely reasonable questions relating to his own
community and, more broadly, the importance that we all attach to
ensuring that social cohesion is strengthened across the country
and that we make progress on this hugely important agenda.
The first thing to say is that the battle against extremism and
the rise of extremist ideology across our country is something
that everyone here cares passionately about, as all hon. Members
who have spoken today have articulated. In particular, my hon.
Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent North powerfully underlined
in his opening speech the need to counter the spread of extremist
beliefs among young people in our schools, the importance of
confronting issues when young people fall victim, the importance
of the Prevent programme to ensure that communities are cohesive
and strengthened and, more broadly, the importance that, as a
Government and a country, we must attach to making progress on
these hugely important issues over time.
That is one of the reasons why we commissioned the Khan review,
why we gave Dame Sara Khan the space, the time and the support to
look at these matters in the round, and why we welcomed the
publication of her report a number of weeks ago. She was charged
with examining these issues in greater depth, to investigate the
scale, the causes and the impact of extremism in local
communities, and to provide insights into how we can build
resilience to better support those involved, local authorities
and civil society.
As a number of Members have said, the report outlined some of the
challenges we face, not because of decisions that the Government
have made—I will come back to the point that the hon. Member for
Bradford West () made in a moment—but, if we are
going to have a mature debate about this, because of long-term
issues that are impacting western democracies across the world
and will impact this democracy whoever is in power. As a
consequence, the hon. Lady should be careful about some of the
statements that she makes. Those who seriously want to make
progress will deal with the issues in front of them rather than
calling others who are involved in the conversation names.
The report highlighted particular issues around disinformation,
harassment and intimidation; the climate of self-censorship that
hon. Members have outlined, not just among people in this place
or associated with politics, but across all walks of life; a
wider disillusionment with democracy that is starting to seep
into parts of our civic society; and decreasing trust in
politics, particularly among the young. All of that aggregates to
create a vacuum that extremism and extremist ideology can
fill.
The Government very much welcome Dame Sara Khan's work and we
thank her for it. We wholeheartedly agree that democracy is a
precious asset. That is a view that all of us in this place—right
hon. and hon. Members who have the privilege of representing
communities up and down the land in Parliament—would share.
The report shines a light on some fundamental gaps in our system,
and it clearly sets out Dame Sara's view of what the Government
should do to address those flaws. As has been articulated, my
right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Levelling Up,
Housing and Communities recently set out measures that will
ensure that the Government do not inadvertently provide a
platform to those who want to subvert our democracy and deny
other people's fundamental rights. That is just the first of a
series of steps the Government will take in the coming weeks and
months to tackle extremism and protect our democracy, including
the publication of a full response to the Khan review before the
summer break. While I am not able to go into the details at this
stage, we have committed to publishing a response to the review
in the weeks ahead.
I want to turn to some of the individual points that hon. Members
have made. My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent North
raised a number of hugely important points about the need to
ensure cohesion, and drew upon the experience that he and his
colleagues in Stoke-on-Trent have over the long term. I
wholeheartedly endorse many of those points.
My hon. Friend has a specific concern with regard to Prevent
funding. He will be aware that I am unable to speak absolutely
about Prevent funding from the perspective of the Department that
I represent, but he indicated that he has written to the Home
Office, and I will certainly make sure that, yet again, those
points are telegraphed to my equivalents in the Home Office. I
recognise that he and my hon. Friend the Member for
Stoke-on-Trent South (), and those involved in
Stoke-on-Trent politics in general, feel very strongly about
that.
I understand that part of the restructuring of the Prevent
funding was about regionalising some elements of the funding, and
there are still elements of the support that are available to all
local authorities. I understand—at least from the notes that I
have been given, accepting that I am not the lead for
Prevent—that Stoke-on-Trent City Council may not have taken
advantage of all the support that is available. I know that my
hon. Friends will make sure that the council does that if it has
not done so already, recognising the very valid points that they
made.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent South outlined in
even more detail the very long-term challenges that were created
with the rise of some of these extremist ideologies in his home
town, the time and effort that it took to try to beat those back,
and all the work that was done to do so. He rightly highlighted
the importance of giving space to very mainstream views that are
shared in places such as Stoke-on-Trent, Bradford, the north-east
and definitely in my part of Derbyshire. We must not suggest that
it is illegitimate to be proud of this country and to celebrate
its history, its culture, its institutions, its norms and
representations of it. Those who over the past 20 years have
tried to diminish those things, remove them and pretend they did
not happen—those who suggest they are old-fashioned and have no
place in our society—are absolutely wrong and do nothing for
community cohesion. They do nothing to build the strength and
tolerance that our country has thrived on for many decades.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent South is absolutely
right: like many others, I may not choose to go to the Proms or
to indulge in “Rule, Britannia”, but it is vital that we have a
shared understanding of the norms, culture, history, traditions
and identity that we share in this country, which have brought us
to the place we are today. We should be immensely proud of
that.
My hon. Friend highlighted some of the read-overs to other areas.
Fundamentally, there is an ideology—postmodernism—that has seeped
out of our universities over the past 50 years, and which seeks
to dismantle the nation state as a concept. There is absolutely
no underpinning logic to it; it is essentially a play—a game, an
attempt to twist things—and it does not actually help us build
communities. It does not seek to build things up; it seeks only
to tear down institutions that have worked so well for centuries
on end, and to eliminate the concept of the nation state.
Too many people in this place and elsewhere do not understand the
incredibly nefarious effect that postmodernism will have on our
society if we are not clear about it. That ideology seeps out of
universities, moves into our institutions and infects parts of
our public sector, and then moves out into civil society as a
whole. It explicitly encourages people to have no shared
understanding of our history—it effectively wishes to abolish
history—to have no shared lexicon and to play with words to such
an extent that reality is completely subverted because we say
something is one thing on one day and then pretend it is
something else on another. There are entirely arbitrary rules
underpinning it, which change based upon the fashion, whoever
shouts the loudest, and the time of the day and the day of the
week. That is an ideology that will fail, and if we allow it to
infect our institutions, our civil society and the work we do in
this place and elsewhere, our country will be much weaker, poorer
and less able to build the kind of cohesive society that we
want.
My hon. Friend is absolutely right: we have not had a discussion
in this place or elsewhere about what we must do. When people
play with the building blocks of civic society, words,
institutions, basic concepts and shared endeavour, how can we
build the kind of cohesive society that we want? Whether it is
expressed in a temperate way, like my hon. Friends the Members
for Stoke-on-Trent North and for Stoke-on-Trent South did, or in
a more emotive way, like the hon. Member for Bradford West did,
we have a shared endeavour, but postmodernism absolutely prevents
that from happening. We should call it out, stop it and say it
has no place in our country and our academic and civil
institutions, because it will fail and will lead to a less
cohesive society.
I was just thinking about the Minister's warning that I should be
careful. I am just trying to work this out. There is this idea
that we should have a shared history, but we are not teaching our
history in its entirety to our children. We are not talking about
togetherness. The Minister might want to read the lecture by the
first Muslim Cabinet member, the former Tory chairwoman, , who talked about the idea
that Muslims do not matter. Does the Minister agree that, if we
want a cohesive society, language is key, and the message has to
come right from the top in 10 Downing Street? Muslims must not be
otherised. Does he not include Muslims in that conversation,
because it certainly feels like that?
I am grateful to the hon. Lady, because she articulates yet again
the care that is required in language and assertions, which has
been sadly absent from her contributions to the debate, both a
moment ago and previously. Of course Muslims matter. Of course
people of all faiths matter. It is frankly outrageous that there
is a suggestion that that is not the case. Of course they
matter.
Those of us who are trying to build a cohesive society—an
endeavour that I know the hon. Member for Bradford West
shares—believe that such statements should not be made. They send
a message to people who are listening today that, for some
reason, there is some kind of fundamental difference and that
those of us who have the privilege to sit in this place do not
believe in cohesion and want to separate people out on the basis
of the skin or the religion they have, and that is fundamentally
untrue.
What I find most offensive, most outrageous and most egregious in
this culture of grievance that is perpetuated by comments such as
the ones put forward a moment ago is the separation of people
within our community into backgrounds or experiences or skin
colour.
Will the Minister give way?
No, I will not give way.
Sir (in the Chair)
Order. The Minister talks about being temperate and using
temperate language. Could I please remind him to observe that
when he makes his comments?
With absolute pleasure, Sir Mark. I absolutely intend to do so.
As has been outlined, my concern is that it is important that we
are very clear and very careful about the language we use, which
I have sought to be, and about suggestions as to the motivations
of others, which I have sought to be. Equally, it is important
that we are robust about calling out cases where that care is not
taken. All of us have a responsibility in this place and
elsewhere to utilise the best and most careful language,
assertions and arguments. Today has been an indication of where
that is not occurring in places, and I will come on to that more
in a moment.
Will the Minister give way?
I will make some more progress before doing that.
The hon. Member for Strangford () raised a number of important points and made some
very strong points about social media. We are all dealing with
our interaction with social media, its importance now and its
pervasiveness in daily life, as well as with the opportunities
and challenges it brings as a whole. The reality is that social
media is entirely embedded in our daily lives, in the way it was
not even a few decades ago when I was growing up. The situation
is extremely different, most obviously for children, who are
having to learn how to deal with it as they grow up, but also
across society as a whole. That is something we will have to
grapple with for the rest of our lives, and it will not be
immediately clear for many years exactly what that means. We are
all going to have to learn, and to take things extremely
carefully, as we try to understand how we ensure that social
media is embedded in our life in a way that accentuates the
positives and minimises the negatives.
The hon. Member for Strangford also talked about the challenges
of cynicism about democracy, and I accept that point as well.
From my personal perspective, one of the challenges in recent
years is that there has been a baselining of issues in our
country that we actually need to debate much more often. The
rights that people talk about quite freely—often too freely in
many instances—which I support, and which I know everybody in
this place and beyond supports, do not just appear; they are not
guaranteed.
Will the Minister give way?
I will give way in a moment. Those rights are hard won and hard
fought for—people have died for them—and we must continually
repeat and confirm that in order to ensure that people recognise
that these rights are not automatic. All of us involved in
politics and the political process have work to do. The situation
we are in, including the relatively benign environment we have
grown up in, and our right, when we go home to our respective
communities, to have the kind of debates and discussions we want,
need to be nurtured. If they are not, they wither on the vine;
they ossify, and they do not work. We cannot get away from this
principle—this indulgence—that if we do not accept that all of
that is built on the concept of the nation state, the United
Kingdom and the values our country has, ultimately it will not
work in the long run.
I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. He is right, and
everybody has that right, including me. I represent the great
people of Bradford West, and 60% of my constituency is Muslim, as
I myself am. I find it really offensive that the Minister is
offended that I am stating facts. I am demonstrating that the
Government are not walking the walk when delivering on their
so-called cohesion policies or their so-called attempts to
deliver equality. In fact, I am even more offended at any
suggestion that my interventions are about a grievance narrative,
when they are actually all about Muslims just wanting equality.
We are not talking about special treatment; nobody in my
constituency wants special treatment. What they do want—will the
Minister give it and agree?—is equality.
Sir (in the Chair)
Order. Interventions are meant to be short.
I thank the hon. Lady, who makes some of my case for me. However,
turning to her comments, I agree with some of what she says. It
is important that we build a shared understanding and a shared
set of values in this country. I agree that we should be
temperate with language. Where she has called out inappropriate
behaviour—I do not agree with all her points—I accept that no
party is perfect. I accept that some of my colleagues will have
made mistakes. I accept that some words have been looser than
they should have been.
However, I hope the hon. Lady will accept that that is not
limited to my party or to the Government—there have been multiple
examples. However, if we just trade off on the basis of who said
what where, or make some kind of case that one political party is
worse than the other, when we know that they have all had
significant issues with community relations over many years—only
one party got into the place it did with regard to antisemitism a
number of years ago—we will be much poorer in the debate about
this issue.
The hon. Member for Bradford West referenced facts, and I am
happy to talk about some of the challenges around the facts she
provided a moment ago. She knows that the Inter Faith Network's
funding was withdrawn because of a decision to appoint somebody
who had a background in a particular organisation—that was a
choice that the organisation made, and it appointed that person.
The policy of non-engagement with the Muslim Council of Britain
has been in place since the Labour party was in power. Indeed, it
was the former Labour Member for Salford—the Secretary of State
in the predecessor to my Department—who started that policy of
non-engagement with the Muslim Council of Britain in 2009, which
my party continues to this day. It is perfectly logical to extend
a policy that was introduced and endorsed by the Labour party, on
the basis of logic put forward by the Labour party, because of
the challenges that we now have. The hon. Member for Bradford
West shakes her head, but those are the facts on the assertion
that she made.
Will the Minister give way?
I am afraid I will make progress. I have given way a number of
times.
The hon. Member for Bradford West made a number of comments about
populism and raised a number of concerns about extremism and its
definition. When she next speaks in debates like this, she needs
to define the specific issues she has with the definition of
extremism, because that was not part of her speech when we strip
back all the criticisms about individuals. We can always have a
robust debate, but if we want to have a mature one, which the
hon. Lady claims she does, it would be better to focus on
concerns about the specific definitions the Government are trying
to bring forward, and what they do and do not achieve, as opposed
to spending much more time talking about individuals.
I will probably leave it there. I have many more things I could
say about the hon. Lady's speech, but maybe it is better to deal
with those in another forum at another time. I will just say that
I do not agree with much of her speech, and I hope that, in time,
she will reflect on many of the points that were made.
Putting aside some of the challenges mentioned in Members'
speeches, and what was contained in at least one of them, I think
today has shown that all of us feel extremely passionately about
ensuring that we build a society that is cohesive and resilient
for the long run, and about seeking to utilise what the
Government can do to move forward the things we see in our
individual communities, whether that be Stoke-on-Trent, Blaydon,
North East Derbyshire, Bradford, Strangford—the hon. Member for
Strangford is no longer in his place— or elsewhere. We also want
to identify the issues that we need to deal with in the years
ahead, which is exactly what the commissioning of the Khan review
sought to do.
Despite the robustness of the debate, and despite my fundamental
disagreements with some of the points that were made, I think it
has been a useful debate and a good debate. Again, I am grateful
to my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent North for giving
us the opportunity and space to have the debate, and I am glad
that he and my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent South
have had the opportunity to raise specific they are concerned
about within their great city. I hope that such robust
debates—next time, the language will hopefully be slightly more
cautious and temperate—highlight the interest and need of
everybody, wherever we sit on the political spectrum, in terms of
getting this matter right and making progress for the long run,
which is something we all want to achieve.
Sir (in the Chair)
I call to wind up the debate.
3.40pm
Thank you, Sir Mark. I thank all Members who took part in this
important debate, and I thank the Minister for his words and
reflections, particularly on the Prevent funding for
Stoke-on-Trent, and for saying that he will pass on our comments
to the Home Office. My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent
South () and I will continue to push
for that additional uplift, to make sure that we can retain that
important service.
I want to reflect on a few of the things that have been said.
First, the hon. Member for Strangford (), who is no longer in his place, should rightly be
horrified to antisemitic tropes, words and images projected on to
buildings in Belfast, as we sadly saw happen here on Elizabeth
Tower. It is completely abhorrent that that kind of thing is
taking place, and the police must crack down on it.
I visited the hon. Gentleman's constituency—in fact, I gave a
talk to members of his party, as well as to the wider
community—and it was great to be surrounded not only by
passionate patriots and Unionists, but by members of the
community who have lived side by side. They may have different
religious or nationalistic views, but they have ultimately grown
up side by side as neighbours, friends and colleagues, and I am
immensely proud to see the way that that country has moved
forward.
My own stepmother, Janet Harbison, set up the Belfast Harp
Orchestra, and a member of her family was once an Irish
nationalist Member of this Parliament—as you can imagine, our
dinner table can be quite interesting at times. She wanted to
take part in the peace process by using culture as a way of
bringing the community together, and she faced death threats from
the IRA, despite coming from the Republic of Ireland and despite
her family's recent history of representing people wanting a
united Ireland at that stage. Even she was targeted, with people
sending her images of her younger sister, alongside death
threats, letting her know that they knew where her family lived.
That was truly shocking.
When Janet married my father, who is half-Irish and half-English
by birth, they were targeted with abuse and threats; bomb threats
were literally made against them, which saddens me to my core to
this day. That meant that I was not able to visit my father as
much as I wanted to, purely for my own safety. Rightly, my mother
and stepfather, and my father and stepmother, wanted to make sure
that I was safe.
That shows how far the country has now come, which is why what
happened in Belfast is so sad. To see such things being played
out again—although in a different guise, using what is happening
the middle east as a background—is very sad indeed for a
community that has been divided on the basis of birth or
religion.
I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent South, who
is fellow Stokie, although I am obviously an import—my accent
gives it away—while he is from there by birth and by breeding. In
fact, “Brereton” is all over the bloody roads and in the names of
streets, because my hon. Friend's family were responsible for
building many of them in the not-too-distant past. It is great to
see him standing up again for the community that we serve, and he
is right to do so.
I am proud to wear or wave the St George's flag, as I am the
Union flag. I am proud to say that I am British and English. I am
proud to sing “Three lions on a shirt” as much as I am to sing
“Rule, Britannia”, which will not come as a shock to the
Minister. I am proud to stand shoulder to shoulder with many fine
patriots across our great community of Stoke-on-Trent North,
Kidsgrove and Talke, 73% of whom voted to leave the European
Union in the 2016 Brexit referendum. I appreciate that there were
unfair comments, and the hon. Member for Bradford West () talked about people being called
“traitors” in this place. I was not in this place at the time,
but I of course entirely understand that it would have been
completely inappropriate to refer to people in that way.
It is important to understand that there was a groundswell of
anger among the public, including people like myself, who voted
to leave and who campaigned to leave the European Union. We felt
that this place was, sadly, not hearing or representing those
views and that others in this place—not the hon. Lady but others,
who are no longer here—were pushing the idea that people were
somehow thick, uneducated or racist in wanting to see that
democratic right delivered. That fed into some of those far-right
extremist groups, which were able to proliferate off the back of
that.
It has taken a long time to rebuild that trust. These things led
to an undermining of our democratic system, which is why 42% of
people still chose not to cast a vote in the 2019 general
election. That is very sad indeed and was used by groups such as
Hizb ut-Tahrir, which actually encouraged people not to take part
in the democratic process—sadly, in this case, the Muslim
community, in particular.
It is very important that we use the opportunity we have in this
place. I taught religious education for eight years in secondary
state schools across Birmingham and London, and Islam is a
religion of peace. It is stated very clearly that to take one
life is effectively to take the lives of all humankind. It is
therefore entirely appropriate to make it abundantly clear to
extremist groups—those on the far right, but also those in the
Islamic community that pursue a twisted perversion of what Islam
is actually about—that that is simply wrong and abhorrent. The
word “jihad”, which is sadly now used in terrorist atrocities,
actually has a very different meaning—that if, God forbid, holy
war is required, innocent women and children of all races and
faiths are to be left aside, and all religions are to be left in
peace. Ultimately, it is only done in the defence of one's
faith—
Sir (in the Chair)
Order. Could the hon. Member wind up his speech, rather than
start another debate on a related subject?
I do apologise, Sir Mark. I appreciate the point. As I say, I
wanted to make sure that I use this opportunity, because as
Members of this place, our words carry a lot of importance. I
represent a large Pakistani and Muslim community, and given the
recent tensions around what has unfolded in the middle east, its
members may feel that I do not advocate their particular view as
much as they would like me to. I want to let them know that I do,
and I will always stand up for the positive nature of that
community and what it has done. Indeed, for the first time in
Tunstall, we have seen the election of a member of the
Pakistani-British community, Councillor Tabrase Din, who is doing
great work on trying to make our streets safer and tackling the
backlash in recent times, particularly around extremism.
The hon. Member for Bradford West made an impassioned speech. I
would just remind her that political parties across this House
have people in them who have done very silly things, and he who
is without sin may cast the first stone. I remind her that it
was, sadly, the Labour party that was found to have breached or
undermined the human rights of those in the Jewish community, in
particular. I saw that with my predecessor, , who
suffered tremendous antisemitism at the hands of extremists, who
had, sadly, proliferated in her party. I commend the fact that
the Leader of the Opposition has done a lot of work to try to
drive that out, despite what we saw recently in the Rochdale
by-election.
No party can sit here and say that all its members have been
perfect, and we have all seen and needed to call out extremism in
all its forms. However, I kindly remind the hon. Member for
Bradford West that calling people such as Donald Trump or extremists is completely
wrong and drives the feeling that they need to be marginalised
even further. They are mainstream, centre-right politicians who
have a view and who were democratically elected by overwhelming
majorities in both their nations at different times, and they
should be respected, even though we may have political
differences about what they did.
It is important that we continue to have this informed debate and
that we make sure that all sides of the argument are heard. Most
importantly, however, we must allow mainstream views to continue
to be held by mainstream parties in a good-quality, good
old-fashioned democratic debate, rather than allowing the wider
public to feel marginalised, so that they look to the extremist
elements of society, thinking that their views will be heard or
supported there. It is for us in this place to make sure that
people feel that they can be heard and that their views are
supported, and we will continue to do that.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the Khan Review on threats to
social cohesion and democratic resilience.
