Mr. Khan: I thank all the hon. Members who have contributed to the debate. One problem with the hon. Members for Wycombe (Mr. Goodman) and for Hornsey and Wood Green (Lynne Featherstone) is that they speak sense so much of the time. Ministers come prepared for a ding-dong, but the hon. Members disappoint us by being so reasonable and making so many good points. Let me deal with some of those that they have raised.

The hon. Gentleman talked about his experiences as a constituency MP and about the huge contribution that his minority communities have made to his views. In particular, he made an important point—I use my words rather than his—when he queried whether faith
12 Mar 2009 : Column 158WH
was the new race in terms of people’s experiences and how people define themselves. He also touched on the challenges facing Britons of Muslim faith.

The hon. Gentleman went on to talk about multiculturalism, but it means different things to different people. When we analyse what Trevor Phillips and George Alagiah have said, we must ask ourselves how they define multiculturalism before they knock it down—it is the straw man argument.

When I visited the hon. Gentleman’s constituency, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will next week, I was impressed by the inter-faith work that was going on. What was remarkable, although not for those of us involved in this line of work, was the fact that majority communities and members of other faiths were putting out the hand of friendship and helping minority communities of Muslim faith to feel empowered and confident enough to raise their concerns. That inter-faith work is analogous to the best of the inter-racial work that went on in the previous life of my hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk (Mr. Joyce), when he dealt with the CRE and the RECs.

The hon. Gentleman said that raising life chances was the key, and I could not agree more. The discussions that took place following the publication of the White Paper and in the days and weeks leading up to the publication of the equality Bill were about raising life chances, and that has been the cornerstone of what the Government have been about for the past 12 years.

The hon. Gentleman quoted Trevor Phillips as saying that the UK is the best place to live if someone is non-white, and I would endorse and, indeed, extend that. I try to be a practising Muslim. I was born and raised in the UK and have lived here all my life. I often travel overseas and meet Muslims from other countries and of other nationalities. I would go so far as to say that, as a Muslim who seeks to practise his religion, I can think of no other place where I would rather practise it. People here have the ability to go to a place of worship and pray in a congregation; to bury a loved one following Islamic rites of passage; to eat food that reflects their faith; to wear the clothes that they choose to wear, whether they are a woman or a man; and to show political dissent—my hon. Friend referred to the right to protest, but that right is not enjoyed by many Muslim citizens of other countries. I therefore echo and extend the words of Trevor Phillips.

I was pleased when the hon. Gentleman spoke of the need to attack deprivation, because that view has been the cornerstone of many of the policies that the Government have pushed over the past 12 years and which we will push in the next period.

The hon. Gentleman used the phrase “forgotten communities”. Although he was not using it in this way, it is, as he said, often used by the far right to whip up a frenzy, and the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green also touched on that. However, if the hon. Gentleman analyses Government policies over the past 12 years, such as Sure Start, our investment in state schools and children’s centres, neighbourhood renewal, tax credits for working parents, the minimum wage and the steps that we have taken to deal with public health issues such as obesity, smoking cessation and sexually transmitted diseases, he will see that they have indirectly targeted and helped those so-called forgotten communities. I therefore do not accept that those communities have
12 Mar 2009 : Column 159WH
been forgotten. We have taken many steps to deal with some of the problems and challenges that they face in ordinary life.

The hon. Gentleman made a good point about the importance of English. We should not be scared of saying that English is a crucial part of the social ladder and that one needs to be on top of the language if one wants to climb that ladder. People simply cannot speak to their neighbours, do well at school, ask questions of their children’s teachers, get involved in the governing body or the parent-teacher association at their children’s school, progress at work or get a job in the first place if they cannot speak the language. It is therefore important that we do not shy away from recognising the importance of English.

The hon. Gentleman went on to talk about the single group funding debate. He will be aware of the legal challenge brought by Southall Black Sisters against Ealing council, which was supported by the Government. Our policy on single group funding is clear: central Government will not dictate what should and should not be funded at local level. Each place will be different and have different needs. Clearly, there will still be a need for centres that provide specific services to local and minority communities, and that could include women. There are examples of great projects across the country, and it is for local communities to make decisions about such projects. We hope that funders—that means local councils—will take a measured approach, drawing on their knowledge of what happens in their neighbourhoods when they distribute funding. We hope that they will acknowledge the needs of groups that require single group funding, while bearing in mind the need to promote meaningful interaction. We will also ask that funding decisions be communicated effectively to the wider community, to mitigate the risk of myths developing. That was a key point arising from the tenor of the hon. Gentleman’s remarks.

In relation to the excellent work being done about social justice, in which members of both major parties are involved, and the importance of early intervention, I could not agree more with the hon. Gentleman. That is one reason we have been obsessed with Sure Start, parenting skills and all the other things that help people to become better parents, and benefit society in the longer term. A cost-benefit analysis of early intervention shows that there are benefits; but they do not appear for a generation. If we intervene early for the child, the reduction in antisocial behaviour and the improvement in educational attainment will not be apparent for 15 or 16 years at least.

The hon. Lady also made an excellent speech. Her comments about the DNA database are noted. She will of course be aware of the recent case in the European Court of Human Rights and the fact that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is looking into its implications, so I shall not comment on it. Her speech had three themes, the first of which was about those who are already here versus new arrivals—the “it’s not fair” argument. There are two points I want to make about that: first, we need to bust the myths. There are a lot of myths out there and we need to deal with them. Many people have genuine concerns because of things they have been told, which are perpetuated.

12 Mar 2009 : Column 159WH—continued

The hon. Lady raised a substantive concern, however, which is not a myth, about the allocation of finite resources. Housing is a good example. When demand is
12 Mar 2009 : Column 160WH
greater than supply there will always be rationing, and the way in which those finite resources are rationed is important. The debate about need versus entitlement has gone on for 40 years, and it is important for politicians to be alive to the need for openness and transparency in the allocation of finite resources. The hon. Lady’s point about that was important and welcome. However, I would say—I am still trying not to be party-political, but I cannot help myself—£8 billion pounds of investment in the next three years for building more houses will increase the supply of housing. Of course, we have spent the last 12 years trying to improve the quality of the existing supply, but there is a huge demand and we need to ensure that we can meet it.

The hon. Lady’s second point was about segregation, particularly in schools. She and the hon. Gentleman will have witnessed as I have so-called middle-class flight in an area and the ability of some parents to buy a house next to a good school. We have taken steps to try to ameliorate some of the problems with the recently introduced school admissions code, which will help, and, for example, by having Ofsted inspect schools to ensure that they promote community cohesion. The hon. Lady cited twinning, the sharing by schools of resources, and the curriculum as possibilities for good practice. We need to ensure that all schools try to improve integration, not only within the school—intra-pupil integration—but between schools. The hon. Lady made an important point, which was not just pious words, but something that we need to take on board and act on—that all schools need to be good schools. The sooner all schools are excellent schools, the less concerned parents will be that they cannot get the choice they want for their children.

The final point that the hon. Lady made was in the important passage in her speech about Islamophobia. She said something which is sometimes lost on the media: some perpetrators of horrific acts of terror may be people who claim to follow the faith of Islam—although they have a perverse interpretation of it—but many of the victims follow it too. That is missed by the media. Muslims died on 9/11, on 7 July 2005, in Istanbul, Bali and Mumbai, and in the Marriott hotel in Islamabad. The six police officers and one driver who died in Lahore were all Muslim. We should not forget that, and should bear in mind that in a city such as London, where 40 per cent. of British Muslims live, the victims of terrorism will inevitably include many Muslims. It is worth pausing and realising—I am not talking about self-interest—that that is probably one reason for the fact that the vast majority of Muslims are also committed to and obsessed with making sure that they deal with the pernicious individuals who pervert their religion.

The hon. Lady talked about the media. It is often said in jest—perhaps it will become reality—that if only we could nationalise the media it would be possible to control what they say about us. She knows the limitations affecting us, but we can make sure that young citizens are empowered to challenge the media by writing to editors—and in other ways. We have a Muslim young advisory group and a Muslim women’s advisory group, who are becoming more empowered and taking on the media as empowered citizens.

I cannot end without commenting on the hon. Lady’s comments about my noble Friend Lord Mandelson. First, she should not believe all that she reads in the press; he is not the bogeyman. I take on board the point
12 Mar 2009 : Column 161WH
that positive action is not the same as positive discrimination. The Government are aware that equality is good for the individual, society and the economy. We know that and understand the strength in it. That is one reason for our keenness on a single equality Act to deal with inequality and bring about a fairer and more equal society, in preference to several different items of primary and secondary legislation, and directives from Europe.

My hon. Friend made an important contribution about something that is hot and relevant because of events this week. In a clever and acute way, which I wish the media had adopted, he disentangled the rights that people may have to protest—and we have a long and rich history, including in this place, of political dissent. He will know that the 20 or so individuals who wanted to use the rights accorded to them as British citizens caused huge problems of tension within the community for the vast majority of other citizens of Muslim faith who disagree with them. Those people may disagree about what happened in Iraq or Afghanistan, but they do not agree that it is appropriate or sensitive to act in such a way at a homecoming march for people who have risked their lives and some of whose colleagues have died—and my hon. Friend will know more about that than I do from his previous life. It must be put in context.

12 Mar 2009 : Column 162WH

There were people at that homecoming march whose prayers had come true, because their loved ones had come home. Some had lost loved ones overseas. What happened was an act of callous insensitivity on the part of the 20 or so people concerned. That is not to take away their right to protest and express their opinion. My hon. Friend is right to say that we must be careful, when we belong to organisations, about putting across an opinion and perhaps giving the impression that it is the opinion of a faith, race or group, when it is really just an individual opinion. No one faith or race has a monopoly on protest or political dissent.

This has been an excellent debate. I thank hon. Members for its quality and the seriousness with which they have contributed to it. People who read the report of the debate will see that hon. Members of all political parties in the House are determined to make Britain the fairest, most equal country in the world. The parliamentarians in this place will make that happen sooner rather than later.

Question put and agreed to.

3.28 pm
Sitting adjourned.