Social exclusion and deprivation are often cited as background factors in the radicalisation of Muslim youths. But those charged in relation to the most recent terror plot and many of the perpetrators of 7/7 not only came from middle-class backgrounds, but were also seemingly well integrated into British society. What challenges does this pose to our strategy of dealing with this process of radicalization?
Ruth: Well, I think it’s fascinating actually that a lot of people who we think have become radicalised are apparently well-integrated members of society. They, and in some cases their parents, were born in the UK, are in jobs, are reasonably well educated and have gone to university. These aren’t necessarily the factors that people have traditionally associated with the growth of extremism. I think we’ve got to be very alive to that.
Now, of course, we’ve got to deal with structural inequalities where we find them, we’ve got to tackle deprivation where it occurs and we’ve got to try and nurture the life chances of people from all sections of the community. But, I think it’s wrong to equate deprivation with radicalisation. Rather, we need to understand the process of radicalisation better.
I have become convinced that this is a battle of ideas within Islam that has got to be countered directly, and that’s why it’s so important that the Muslim community is empowered to take on that ideological battle, to take on that perverted reading of Islam, which does mean that certain people are susceptible to that form of ideology, are being lead to take up arms in a revolutionary struggle. But, I do think that this is an ideological battle, a battle of ideas and not something which you can simply equate with deprivation and underachievement.
In several polls, many Muslims have discussed their sense of identity, as being Muslim first and British second. Is this something you view as problematic, and if so, how do we overcome this?
Ruth: Not necessarily, and in fact I think it’s fair to say that the vast majority of people in different communities have different identities. It could be that they have an allegiance to their local town, their local city, their cultural background, their race, or their faith. People have all sorts of different forms of identities and different ways of expressing themselves, and I don’t think it’s necessarily the case at all that it’s impossible to feel an allegiance to the country you live in, as well as have a dominant other identity.
Where I think issues may be raised is when a particular identity emasculates all other forms of identity, and where that encourages a form of ‘separateness’. But, I think it’s crucial we keep this debate in proportion. In relation to young Muslims in particular, there was a recent Channel 4 poll where Muslims were asked about their identity and 94 per cent of them disagreed with the idea that they should keep themselves separate from non-Muslims.
So, it is important to have that sense of perspective. Having said that, I do think there are important issues that we need to confront.
Young people growing up in this country, for example, may be second or third generation immigrants and feel tensions between what they believe and what their parents believe, and how they relate to this country and their parents’ or grandparents’ country of birth, or may be lacking a secure sense of identity.
Last week, I launched the Commission on Integration and Cohesion, and one of the things it’s going to look at is how we deal, in practical terms with these sorts of issues: what frictions exist between different communities, what practical measures we can take, or that we can support local communities to take to help overcome these issues on the ground – not just in relation to Muslims, but actually in relation to all communities. The sorts of ideas the Commission will be looking at are school twinning, trying to build up the capacity of the community and voluntary sector and trying to encourage civic leadership; real concrete practical suggestions that I hope will overcome some of those tensions.
Picking up on this process of radicalisation, there are people that argue that foreign policy, especially the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and the recent tensions in the Middle East, have radicalised young British Muslims. Do you agree that in the words of your minister Phil Woolas that this is ‘crap’?
Ruth: Well first of all I think, when you talk to most Muslims the things they really care about are how well their kids are doing at school, what their job prospects are and whether they’re going to be able to get on. But, of course I recognise that people sometimes, and maybe even often, have deeply held and sometimes emotional views about British foreign policy. It’s absolutely right that if people disagree with government foreign policy that they are able to express that vigorously and passionately.
But, of course it can never be the case that terrorism is justified and nor should we try and change British foreign policy because a section of the community strongly disagrees with it. We’ve got to take decisions on the basis of the national interest of this country.
Where I do think we have a job, as a government, is to communicate much better the fact that Britain as a society welcomes the contribution of Muslims, and indeed people of other faiths, and that we have a proud tradition of religious tolerance in this country. In fact, I think it’s probably fair to say that we are probably more liberal in accepting expressions of religious faith than many other western democracies, and in no sense can our foreign policy be characterised, or caricatured perhaps, as being anti-Muslim. It’s up to us, it’s a responsibility of government, working with the Muslim community to try to communicate better the purpose behind our foreign policy, and why it is that we are not being anti-Muslim.
Recently, the media has again focused its attention upon the issue of immigration, in particular in relation to the numbers of Polish migrant workers coming to the UK following the expansion of the EU. With responsibility for communities and cohesion, what role do you envisage for your department in addressing some of the publics’ concerns?
Ruth: Well, this is absolutely at the heart of what the Commission on Integration and Cohesion is going to look at. But, not only is it about new arrivals, new migrants arriving in this country, it’s also about settled communities; how they interact, what the stresses and tensions on public services are, how we can get different groups in the same community to get along better together.
We also need to be aware of how we can best communicate the benefits of immigration to local communities and local population, because it’s absolutely clear that as a country we benefit massively from immigration.
The economy would not have been transformed as it has been without migrant labour, far from being a drain on public services migrants are often actually delivering those very services, not to mention the innumerable ways in which our culture has been enriched by.
So, there are huge net benefits to this country from migration. But, at the same time, we’ve got recognise tensions where they exist and take any practical action that we can to try and manage them.
Over the next twelve months, the Commission on Integration and Cohesion will go to different places in the country, where these tensions and frictions are real and find out which policies are working locally, and, equally, which aren’t. If you go back over the past five years, you’ll see that there are some towns and cities, such as Oldham, which have managed cultural diversity really well, though there are also some, such as Barking and Dagenham, that just haven’t. It’s really important, I think, for the Commission to try and understand in quite detailed terms what the factors are that need to be addressed and what the practical policies are that can help manage them.
Some recent polls have indicated that David Cameron is performing particularly well among women voters. How do you think the Labour party should best moved forward to show that it the party best suited to continue to advance the position of women?
Ruth: Well, I think David Cameron gets away with a lot actually, and that there’s very little media scrutiny of what he’s about. He’s very good on PR, presenting himself in a positive fashion and aligning himself with what he perceives to be the issues at the front of the public’s mind. But, actually, behind all of his words there’s almost no substance. This is particularly true on issues to do with women, work and work-life balance. If you just take the issue of all-women shortlists, for example, he’s spoken warm words, he’s said judge him on the results, he’s introduced his A-list, but actually, Tory associations up and down the country are selecting more and more male candidates.
So I think we’ve actually got to be better at highlighting the gulf between his warm words and the cold reality of Tory plans. If you look at what the Labour party and the government is doing in this area, giving people the right to request flexible working conditions, creating a million more childcare places, establishing Sure Starts in every community up and down the country, which are having a real impact, changing women’s lives for the better, Cameron and the Conservative party have consistently failed to support them.
Of course, we’ve got more to do, and I will shortly be launching the Women and Work Commission report, which will be about how we make it easier for women to combine work and family life. I am determined that as a government we will continue to take these issues forward in a concrete, positive, constructive way, working in partnership with business, but not being afraid of action where change is really needed.
How do you respond to those who question your suitability to oversee equality policy when you have consistently failed to support equality legislation in parliament?
Ruth: I came into politics because I believe in the equal worth of every human being, and because I firmly believe that we shouldn’t discriminate against anyone, regardless of whom they are or what their background is. I am unequivocal that we should not discriminate on the basis of gender, age, race, sexual orientation, or religious beliefs; that we ought to value every member of society; and that we ought to have a society which promotes equality of opportunity no matter who you are or where you come from. I’m proud of what this government stands for, and I fully intend to take it forward as secretary of state with that responsibility.
With regard to the forthcoming local government white paper, do you think that without reform of local authority finance, in terms of both the raising and spending of money, we are ultimately shying away from the big issue?
Ruth: No, I think that this is a very exciting moment for our local democracy. We are reaching a tipping point, where we can usher in a new and unprecedented era of devolution. I intend to bring forward a radical and devolutionary white paper, which I hope will tilt the balance between central and local government. We need to devolve more power from central government to the town hall, and also away from the town hall to local citizens and local communities.
How you empower local citizens and local communities to make a difference will be right at the heart of the white paper. Now, you’re absolutely right that we need to think about local government finance, but before we do that we need a clear picture of what local government is for. That’s why it’s right that we think about that in the white paper, and then allow Michael Lyons, who has been asked to look specifically at local government finance, to report in December. But, it’s right that that’s the sequencing.
With the setbacks of the referendums on regional devolution and current Conservative party policy questioning the legitimacy of Scottish MPs voting on ‘English’ issues, where does this leave our aim of devolving power back to the regions?
Ruth: This is an issue I’ll be looking at very closely in the forthcoming local government white paper. I see cities as the economic powerhouses which will promote regional economic growth, and help close the north-south divide. There are some that say that you have to choose between cities and regions, and I just don’t agree. You need strong cities and you need strong regions and you need them working together to help close regional economic disparities. I want to see strong, local, accountable leadership empowered to really make change on the ground. That’s why taking this agenda forward, strong cities and strong regions, will be a very powerful theme of the white paper.