John Denham

Question: Would you say that the July 7 London bombings were a result of the Iraq war?

John Denham: I think the government's own report into the bombings will show that the Iraq war was one of the factors that has helped radicalise some people in this country and around the world and turn them towards extremist violence.

I think it is crude to say a particular event was caused by the Iraq war, but I don't think there was ever any doubt that that the war would increase terrorism.

That's because of its radicalising effect on people who felt that this was an example of Muslim lives being treated causally, Muslim deaths being caused casually and that the conflict itself would attract new people to become involved in terrorist activity around the world.

I am afraid I think that both of those things have proved to be correct.

We know that government officials were telling ministers in 2004 that Iraq was a radicalising factor amongst Muslim youth in the UK. Now clearly even radical Muslim youths are not going to get involved in terrorist or violent activity but it only takes a tiny percentage to go that extra step and you have a problem.

I don't think there can be any doubt it was a contributory factor.

Question: So did the government just wilfully ignore that advice?

John Denham: The government consistently underestimated the extent to which there might be an indigenous terrorist problem as a result of the war.

They preferred to regard the terrorist problem as primarily as an overseas phenomenon and that is why so much of the response to terrorism has been about policing and security, which is essential, but there has been very little on winning hearts and minds among the Muslim community at home. There was a misjudgement about the growing nature of the terrorist threat.

The government decided any threat was outweighed by the one they thought was posed by weapons of mass destruction and I think history has rather answered that question.

Question: You have recommended a minister specifically in charge of anti-terrorism. Why do you think the government has chosen not to take that approach?

John Denham: What the government needs to recognise is that the responsibilities for co-ordinating its work amongst the Muslim community in particular is currently spread over many different ministries and ministers and there is no impetus and central drive to it.

That is why initiatives tend to get launched and then not pursued, which itself generates cynicism.

Part of fighting terrorism is making the Muslim community feel more included and to break down some of the barriers between the Muslim and the wider community and that certainly needs a minister who is concentrating their time and effort on that job in the way that is not happening now.

Any rational assessment says we will be living with terrorism of the kind we have seen in this country for at least 30 years. It's not simply a matter of trying to identify and catch the people involved in terrorism today, it's about cutting off the supply in the future by winning hearts and minds and persuading people that this is not the way to tackle issues of concern.

Denham on multiculturalism

Questions: In that context do you think multiculturalism has failed?

John Denham: If you look at this country compared to countries like France and the Netherlands - which haven't attempted our approach to multiculturalism nor have they tried to put in place the legal protections of equality and anti-discrimination - you would have to say the British approach has been better.

We are also seeing the limits of what you can achieve and in particular that multiculturalism teaches us a lot about respect for each other and respect for difference but doesn't do a great deal to teach us about what we hold in common and what our common values of our society are and the common way in which we want to describe our British identity.

What we are seeing is not that multiculturalism is wrong but there are some major challenges to a society like ours that it does not tackle and that is essentially identifying what brings us together.

Question: Do you support Gordon Brown's attempts to redefine Britishness?

John Denham: I hugely welcome that whole debate. I was on the Fabian's executive and I was involved a great deal in making British identity the centre of our conference in January when Gordon spoke.

The important thing is not to read Gordon's speech, or anyone else's, and say 'is that the last word?'.

This is a debate that will go on for years but the fact that a major politician, in this case the man I believe will be the next prime minister, is willing to open up the debate about what it means to be British in the 21st century is very important.

Question: Do you think it is a subject that the left has been afraid to address in the past?

John Denham: The left has avoided it for nearly all of my political life and people like me who have been interested in this issue for a number of years have often felt quite isolated.

I think it was a fear that Britishness was automatically something that belonged to the right and was all about racism and imperialism, and the left ignored the fact that we all need to have sense of belonging and of who we are.

The Britishness we need in the 21st century is not the same thing as it was in the village in Devon that I grew up in but we still need a sense of national identity.

Denham on faith schools

Question: What is your view of faith schools?

John Denham: The biggest problem we have got is quite substantial numbers of mono-ethnic schools, not necessarily faith schools by statute or character.

Where there is little interaction between those kinds of schools and those of other ethnicities, that is the problem. We need to do far more to make sure that if children live in separate areas and go to separate schools then they mix together and have joint activities with pupils at other schools with different make-ups. In terms of practical day-to-day politics that is a much bigger issue than that of faith schools.

On faith schools as a whole I have a two part view: I entirely accept that you cannot go around abolishing church schools and if you have church schools you can't say to people of other faiths that they can't have a similar arrangement.

Equally though, I think it is important that politicians should be prepared to question whether a faith school is actually what this town or this community needs in terms of the overall health and cohesion of a community. There are faith schools that contribute to community cohesion and there are some that don't.

Question: Do you think the Home Office often has a knee-jerk response to the events that affect it, and lacks a coherent strategy?

John Denham: In general no, there have been examples of knee-jerk reactions and that is true of all governments - everyone remembers the Dangerous Dogs Bill under the Tories.

There is always a danger of responding to the tabloid pack and some of the anti-terrorism measures this year owed more to the tabloid campaign of the summer than they did to genuine anti-terrorist needs.

I do think that what the Home Office has been trying to deal with over the last couple of years is a heightened level of public expectation of protection from people whose characteristics are dangerous.

However you cannot lock people up forever on the basis that they might one day be violent so if you look at the debate around the mental health bill, immigration and sex offenders I think that the government is trying to address real concerns that are out there in response to some really horrific incidents.

Denham on public service reform

Question: Are you concerned about the general drift of Tony Blair's public service reforms?

John Denham: Yes I am. One of the things I have done consistently over the last year is to make constructive criticisms of the public sector reform agenda.

I have done that not because I am against reform - if you look at my ministerial record you will see that I've been at the forefront of a lot of reform - but I have criticised it where it has been too crude.

It has tended to say that markets, contestability, diversity of providers and choice is all you need to develop a good public service. They are relying too heavily on that and I don't think that is going to work.

Contestability and choice are both important but some of the more traditional ways of improving public service like setting clear targets, having good, independent inspections, taking the power to intervene when things go wrong and having solid management - all of those things are also important and they have been sidelined.

The government needs to be less dogmatic and simplistic in the way it approaches reform.

Question: Is pensions and benefit reform one of the areas you are concerned about?

John Denham: I think there is a different set of issues there. Turner has given us a useful framework although the detail probably isn't quite right.

In welfare reform generally I think what we are quite likely to get on incapacity benefit reform is a good model, doing the right things which is investing the money in helping people to get back to work instead of sitting on benefits and working with people quickly so that they don't get locked onto benefit.