Water is all around us. We drink it – although most of us should probably drink more of it – I know I need to. We shower in it – at least I hope we all do. We swim in it – that is, if you are one of the lucky ones considering the British summer. We are even made up of water ourselves. And it’s a deadly serious area of international development policy.

After becoming the Liberal Democrat Shadow Secretary for International Development, (I know – my title is such a mouthful these days) I looked for guidance from the party members. What did we care about? One of the issues that came up was water, not least because of the previous Conference Motion on water but also because of the correspondence I receive about it. The idea of a water war no longer seems unrealistic. In fact, it is already happening. The UN General Secretary Ban Ki-Moon recently blamed climate change and the lack of water behind Darfur killing.

Even though the Darfuri genocide is a complex issue and situation to grasp, the lack of water was certainly a contributing factor to the escalating violence there. Water is not only vital to get right as it can, and in my belief will, be the cause of violence, it is vital to get right as it is a common natural resource. That means that our water is just as much the Darfuri’s water and the water in Darfur is just as much our water.

It is therefore essential that the provision of water, especially with regard to aid projects, is effective. Yet this is far from the truth today. The answer from the Department for International Development (DfID) to solving the water crisis in the developing world is through the Public-Private Infrastructure Advisory Facility (PPIAF), a World Bank programme aimed at helping developing countries improve the quality of their infrastructure through private sector involvement.

The Government is pouring its money into the PPIAF, by far its biggest donor. I realise that private projects are not always inherently bad or destined to fail – constructive co-ordination between communities, non-governmental organisations, governments and the private sector is the only way for developing nations to develop sustainable water supplies. However, there is a significant problem with the PPIAF – it ain’t working! Now – surely if something isn’t working you either fix it or, failing that, try something else? I would like to see the UK review whether our aid for water – and, for that matter, sanitation – is being spent effectively through the PPIAF, and if not, to cease its funding. Otherwise, we risk just throwing money away.

So what is the Government’s response? Sheer ignorance.

As it seems like our taxes do more bad than good through the PPIAF, I have tried to highlight this huge problem. Firstly, I asked the Secretary of State if he was aware that Norway has withdrawn its funding for the PPIAF, because its projects involving water have so often failed and been so widely criticised. I asked how he scrutinised the use of UK taxpayers’ money, and if he were unable to do so effectively, was he likely to withdraw British funding from the PPIAF.

Hilary Benn quickly got up on his feet to defend PPIAF and he did so using an example of a PPIAF project that had been a great success. The only problem was that it was not an example of a water project – it was a telecoms example! Obviously my question was too hard to handle.

His answer had nothing to do with my question and that demonstrates where the problem lies. I do not believe that the Government knows much about the workings of the PPIAF or its effectiveness. At present, there is little or no scrutiny. That is why it is allowed to continue working in the way that it does, that is why it is allowed to continue to fail, and that is why our money is going down the drain for no apparent reason other than ignorance.

To add grist to the mill, I was recently informed by the World Development Movement that Italy has also formally withdrawn from the controversial PPIAF funding, as well as Norway. Now that two countries have judged the PPIAF inadequate, it is over to the Secretary of State to consider whether he too will make that judgment. It is crystal clear that we must review its work and ensure that our money is being spent effectively. I brought this to the attention of DfID ministers in several debates but this time, instead of at being fobbed off, I just got completely blanked. It was as though someone had implanted a chip in their ear switching to deaf mode as soon as the abbreviation PPIAF came out. What’s a girl to do? Only one thing to do – scream louder!

This article first appeared in Liberal Democrat News. For subscription details, click here.

(c) Lynne Featherstone, 2007

Parliament is now in recess until October 8th. The media obsess about the long ‘holidays’ that MPs have – but of course – recess doesn’t equal holiday. I don’t know about all MPs – but certainly all the ones I asked had pretty intense programs.

For the record – I will have one week off to sort my house out, two days at the Edinburgh Festival and one week in France – and yes I will be travelling by train! That’s the hols bit.

What about the rest of the time? Well, once you get beyond the "10 weeks holiday" jibes, I think there is actually a lot to be said for MPs having blocks of time (though not quite so long) to concentrate on matters other than the immediate Parliamentary demands.

When Parliament is sitting the hugely frenetic political and media cycle means there often isn’t time to stop and think – or to do those things that take more than a moment. Now – you can get away with either in the short run, but in the long run – that way bad decision and out of touch politicians rest. And of course there’s also plenty more to being an MP that talking and voting in Parliament.

So – in case anyone wonders what I am up to – this is my summer program. I have a number of ‘projects’ planned this recess. The first is getting around the businesses in Hornsey & Wood Green. Businesses don’t have a vote – but they still need to be properly represented. Small businesses, shops and restaurants are the life-blood of our local communities. This year huge rent reviews resulted in much loved local businesses like Bond & White (DIY shop – Muswell Hill) deciding to close after decades.

So I want to try and get round as many businesses as I can to introduce myself, hear what the particular issues are – and continue my campaign to introduce business recycling. Did you know that it is illegal currently for a business to take its recycling to a council recycling facility? If we are serious about recycling – we have to bring businesses into the loop.

Next project is to knock on lots of doors in to make sure that I spend time in each ward meeting residents face to face. Of course, I do all this anyway during the term time – but it is just not possible to do it enough – and recess presents that opportunity. I like meeting people – and there is nothing like turning up at someone’s house out of the blue if you are the MP.

I go to many meetings and neighbourhood assemblies etc during the term time – but there are many, many people who will never go those sort of gatherings (unless a very specific issue affects them). Each year I carry out with my colleagues a residents’ survey which gives me a very good picture of what is going on (or not going on that should be going on) in each street of the constituency – but there is still nothing like meeting people face to face.

And then alongside all this there is making sure the office is up to date and that my paperwork, emails etc are all up to date; writing a number of articles; reading papers and documents that I have slung in a ‘when I have time’ pile; preparing and time-tabling campaigns for the next term and also doing more work to make sure two new-ish local groups continue to take off and prosper. These are MailWatch (residents concerned about the state of local postal services) and the Darfur Action Group (campaigning for more action against the genocide in Sudan).

All the time of course other local issues will carry on ticking over and calling on my time I’m sure – such as making sure people know what health service changes are proposed and are properly consulted on and the futures of Fortismere School, Parkland Walk, Hornsey Hospital and Hornsey Town Hall – plus two short work trips – three days in South Africa looking at AIDS projects and a short trip to the USA on foreign affairs and international development business where I plan to meet with UN and World Bank officers.

And that’s that. It will be over in a whoosh!

(c) Lynne Featherstone, 2007

I think my local GP practice in Highgate is fantastic. In one form or another I have been going there since I was a child when it used to be at the bottom of Jackson’s Lane – even before it moved to North Hill. I can walk to it. I am familiar with it. And instinctively I don’t want to have to go anywhere else if I am ill! And I would guess that most people feel the same about their local GP practice; or if they don’t and have problems with their local GP practice (or don’t have one) – what they want is a high quality local practice.

But that doesn’t seem to be our government’s vision for health services. The London Plan proposes super-duper special hospitals for stroke, heart attacks and major traumas to save lives. Then there are a series of rationalisations around district hospitals, A&Es and what health services are offered where. And the bit that I wanted particularly to bring to your attention and which will be part of a consultation exercise by the Haringey Primary Care Trust is the plan at the local level. The Government envisages five or six ‘polyclinics’ for Haringey.

The first polyclinic is likely to be the long, long awaited, new health facility to be developed on the site of the old Hornsey Central Hospital.

The positive version of this is that these new polyclinics would have fantastic facilities for diagnostics, chiropody, midwives, sexual health or whatever is needed locally plus GP practices to serve up to 50,000 people. In other words – you go to one place and get a wide range of services delivered then and there, without having to shuffle between GP and hospital with all the delays and travel that involves. Fast, expert service that means people don’t have to be committed to hospital – that all sounds to the good doesn’t it?

But there could be another side to the polyclinic story. To be viable each polyclinic will need to have a large GP practice on site, so that could mean GP practices being centralised. Will larger practices be a good thing – with all the problems of them possibly having less of the human touch, not seeing the same person twice in a row etc.? And depending on which practices end up moving to the polyclinics, and where the polyclinics are located, will lots of people end up finding that their ‘local’ GP practice now isn’t so local after all?

The result of introducing polyclinics could be centralised, distant and out-of-touch services – as we have seen in so many other areas of public service, such as the police (though, to their credit, many in the police now want to return to a greater number of truly local points of presence).

That is why we, the users of our health services, need a proper say on polyclinics – not a consultation that takes no notice of our views or is so vague in what it asks that we don’t really get to judge the possible outcomes.

One of the key questions to me is: what percentage of people going to a GP currently can be treated by the GP and what percentage need referring on? The higher the proportion of people who need referring on to another service, the more attractive polyclinics are, where those other services will often be right there on the same site. Now – you would have thought this sort of figure would be a key part of the polyclinic decision-making. But when I asked the local health trust couldn’t tell me – so I shall put down a Parliamentary Question on this.

Polyclinics may be a brilliant way forward for our local health facilities – but I want us all to have a proper say in any proposed re-organisation of our facilities and both our GP practises (who operate as small businesses now and who will make their own decisions on any changes to their set-ups) and the local Health Trust need to involve us – the users of the service.

Interested in reading more about polyclinics? Read the postings about polyclinics on my blog.

An earlier version of this article first appeared in the Highgate and Muswell Hill Flier.

So once again our land is under threat from terrorists. How are we going to stand together across our different cultures and beliefs to see off the terrorists who would steal our lives and our freedoms?

I was watching Andrew Marr’s Sunday morning program recently – and he was interviewing Prime Minister Brown the day after the attack on Glasgow Airport, and two days after the two London car bombs. Andrew raised the issue of the thousands of websites that pour out bile against Western girls who go to night clubs – calling them slags and whores. I was appalled. You see, I think it’s fair enough to find such girls’ behaviour objectionable and to be reviled by their activities – although I totally disagree – in as much as it is a free country and if young women want to dress scantily and go to nightclubs and drink alcohol – that is their right to do so. And whilst I will defend the right of those who believe these women are somehow the spawn of the devil to say so – my tolerance stops when there is actual harm or incitement to harm them, to murder them.

I find many things offensive about religions that subjugate women. I find it appalling that a woman’s life can be dictated by a man. I find it incomprehensible that women tolerate such absolute dominance. And I will always campaign and highlight the need for equality – and I hope one day that no woman will be subjugated to a man’s will – and that goes right across every faith, culture and race I know – including white Christians. And I would intervene in a flash if such relationships became violent.

So when terrorists attack nightclubs as symbols of decadence – I say they should look at themselves. Any religion – or perversion of religion – that claims a right to kill people because they find their behaviour offensive is where my tolerance stops. And it is not as if those who declaim against the supposed decadence of Western society are particularly pure or clean themselves. A quick quiz question: who was it who superintended the widespread growing of illegal drugs for Western consumption and made profits out of it? Answer – Osama bin Laden and the Taliban. So much for their claims to being virtuous; the truth is that they are the very same amoral grubby profit seekers they attack others for being.

Now, this country is phenomenally liberal – and that’s why it is such a great place to live. That’s why it is a place of asylum. That is why those who are persecuted by the murderous bastards that seem to inhabit and threaten in so many parts of the world come here to find peace, shelter and safety.

Enough is enough! There must be no hiding place nor shelter for those who would murder us – whatever their perverted rationale. And to anyone who might mistakenly believe that there is any justification for such attacks – then I say they are as guilty as those who perpetrate these hideous murders. I don’t care if you disagree with the war in Iraq. I disagree with it too. We will not be beaten by extremists whose warped views cannot succeed through democratic means – who have to blow up people because they can’t get them to agree with them. That is the true mark of the frailty of their believes and their continued failure.

(c) Lynne Featherstone, 2007

I have petitioned and campaigned for – and against – many, many thingssince the world of political campaigning crossed my path. But theabsurdity of the thought of running a petition calling for next month’sinflation figure to be cut by at least 0.3% or running a street stalldemanding an extra 0.1% on the third quarter’s GDP growth figure shouldnot become a reason for ignoring economic issues in our campaigning.

For economic issues are crucial to winning support – and if ourtechniques do not easily apply to them, then it is those techniques thatneed adapting. Why do I say that economic issues are crucial? Well – Ihave written before about the significance of the economy to generalelection campaigns and its importance is best summed up in two ways. First, peopleconsistently rate economic issues as amongst the most important inhelping to make up their minds when it comes to voting – especially whenyou add together the numerous different issue labels into which theeconomy is often broken down in polls. As one example – in May 2005YouGov found that it was the third most important issue, even breakingin on that near-holy trinity of health, crime and education we have all(rightly) been taught to use with such effect.

Second, take a step back from our own conduct of campaigns and look athow the rest of the world describes and acts during election campaigns.The economy is frequently at the centre – just as when Philip Gouldwrote to Tony Blair in April 2005 that he should: “drive the election tothe point where it came down to one central question: ‘Who do you trustwith the future of the economy?'”

The regional variation in the Conservative performance in 2005reinforces this message: in the South East the Conservatives didconsistently better than in other English regions and this was theregion which had the worst economic experience, with unemploymentuniquely rising in 2001-2005.

More recently, it is striking that in the successful US Democratcampaigns in Montana, Missouri and Virginia – those which in fact gavethem control of the Senate last year – populist economic messages playeda major role, as did the long-term health or otherwise of the Frencheconomy in their Presidential election earlier this year.

Neglecting economic issues therefore comes at a real cost to ourelectoral prospects. If we are not engaging in a key area for voterswhen making up their minds, we are hobbling ourselves in the electoralrace.

And what image does it leave of us as a party if we skip lightly overthe economic heart of government when laying out our messages? It israther like meeting a police officer who talks their great plans tostart using a low-emission police car, is getting solar panels on theroof of the police station, takes part in a charity stall at the localsummer fair, is introducing organic food to the staff canteen and has aneffective twinning arrangement with a police force in France – butavoids talking about the business of catching and arresting people. Alllovely things – but in the end, isn’t there something rather crucialmissing at the heart of all that?

We have a good basis on which to build – particularly the party’shard-won tradition of not just having fully costed general electionmanifestos, but having costings that stand up to close examination. Thecareful balancing of the details of tax cuts and rises in the “Green TaxSwitch” policy is another good building block. So what more can we do -especially as our traditional campaigning techniques may not seem easilyadaptable to this issue?

First, meeting local businesses should be a part of the diary of MPs,candidates and councillors alongside the traditional hospital and schoolvisits. This is not just a matter of show (though we should of courseget and use photographs) but also a matter of necessity, for by meetingbusinesspeople we are much more likely to pick up the issues of concernto them for us to work on. I have been struck in my own constituencypostbag and surgeries how certain issues naturally raise themselves withme; for example, most weeks I can barely move for examples of problemswith the way our planning system work. But until I started ensuring thatmore business visits were in my constituency diary, the travails andissues of small businesses rarely intruded into my in-tray.

Indeed, thinking back to when I was more involved in my family’sbusiness, I remember how often the words of politicians about theeconomy seemed a stepped removed from the reality of running a business.

That is why meeting and listening is so important. It is just like withthe general public – if you are never on the doorstep you lose touchwith the public, and if you’re never meeting businesses, you lose touchwith them too.

Second, we can emphasise the benefits for business and the economybehind our other policies. The Green Tax Switch is right for the planetbut also – by growing the opportunities for businesses marketing greengoods and services – good for our economy in the long run. It’s not justa green policy, it’s a job creation policy.

Putting effectiveness, not vindictiveness, at the heart of ourcrime-fighting policies is good for the communities who suffer lesscrime as a result – but it is also helping reduce a heavy burden on manybusinesses.

Abolishing the DTI was not just a means to fund our other policies (a policy that now needs updating following Gordon Brown’s departmental reorganisation) – itwas also a good way of attacking unnecessary bureaucracy that afflictssmall firms. Indeed, removing unnecessary restrictions on both peopleand organisations is after all a good part of what liberalism is about.

Simplifying the tax system is important not just for individualsstruggling to cope with Gordon Brown’s morass of tax credits andcomplicated paperwork – it is also important for small businessesstruggling to grow and cope with bureaucratic burdens on them. And atthe more local level of taxation, relating it to ability to pay meansnot just having a local income tax rather than Council Tax, but alsointroducing the sorts of business rates allowances we had in our 2005business manifesto.

Fighting for a fair trade deal for developing countries does not justhelp alleviate poverty in those countries, it also helps globalprosperity. The list goes on and on – and we shouldn’t be afraid ofpointing out the self-interested benefits (such as more jobs) frompolicies that are motivated by higher causes (such as saving theenvironment).

Third, we should remember that people’s perceptions of how the economyis performing are neither set in stone nor outside of our influence. Itis a staple of academic studies that people’s perceptions of how thegovernment has performed on the economy heavily influences how peoplevote. Now – we are well used to the idea of campaigning hard locally tochange people’s views of the track-record of those running the council;we do not need to shy away from bringing similar influence to bear ontheir views of politicians’ economic records – particularly if the PrimeMinister is a former Chancellor of the Exchequer and the leader of theopposition was a top adviser in the Treasury when Britain last plungedinto deep recession!

These three steps – meeting with business, framing our policies in thecontext of their economic and business impact, and talking about theeconomic record – are beneficial in themselves. Even better, though,economic issues help us present one of our core themes in a concrete andpractical manner. “Fairness” is a good concept for gathering up many ofour policies and attitudes of mind, but to make it work as avote-winning and society-changing concept we need to present anddemonstrate the idea of fairness in ways that are persuasive, thatilluminate the concept, that show its practical application, that showwe are in touch with and understand the concerns of non-political people- and that move beyond simply sticking the word on the cover of somedocuments or under the logo on some press or conference backdrops.

This i
s just the opportunity which the economy – and in particulartaxation – provides, because most of the policies I’ve touched on abovecan be couched in just these terms. They are about having policies thatmake life fairer for people and businesses. They take the ideologicalconcept and turn it into practical policies which let us bothdemonstrate why it’s the right concept but also that we are sincere inpromoting it.

Fairness applies in the wider economic picture too, for tackling povertyand social exclusion is essential for helping people to realise theirown potential and to truly prosper in a fair, tolerant and liberalsociety. And this is something that benefits the whole community. We allbenefit from the better public services, the lower crime rates and themore harmonious society that flow from a more content and prosperouscountry. And that’s our challenge to deliver.

(c) Lynne Featherstone, 2007. This article first appeared in Liberator.

Huge rent rises threaten our local shops each time they come up for review. But it is our local shops on the high streets such as those in Muswell Hill and Highgate that are the hearts of our communities. Without our local independent shops all we would have left would be the drab hand of centralising uniformity that comes with the big national chains, driving out the local vibrancy and variation that is the true heart of a local community.

A recent slew of rent rises has threatened the future of some of our favourite businesses in Muswell Hilland it was not that long ago the Raj’s corner shop inHighgate Village was under threat.

No one says that landlords should not raise rents when the five-yearly or whatever reviews comes around, but just sometimes you have to say that they appear to really push it – often to the point of pushing out the local independent business who has been a good tenant for years. Such businesses cannot always afford the massive hikes put forward and they decide to give up as the rent hike takes virtually all the profit they have struggled to make in a whole year’s workat a stroke – and we lose our long-serving and much loved community shops.

Contrary to a view I hear expressed from time to time about businesses coining it, most of the small businesses I know find it pretty tough to keep going against the ever-increasing burden of bureaucracy, costs and competition from multiples. Yes – there are those that make a decent profit – and good luck to them – but I bet most are just holding their heads above the water.

My Liberal Democrat colleague, Cllr Gail Engert has been out and about talking to some of the shops in Muswell Hill Broadway where there are a number of shops who are facing or have faced this problem. At Dod’s Newsagent, they had their rent raised from £14,500 to £31,500 in January 2006. And this is the amount that it was lowered to after they went to arbitration. But arbitration costs a lot of money, as you have to use specialists like surveyors in order to prepare your case – and Dod’s costs to go to arbitration were around £6,000. Another shop in Fortis Green underlined this point and said that they go through a rent review every four years and have to go to arbitration to get the proposed hike lowered. These little shops also have to pay high business rates for which they get very little service or say.

The loss of a shop providing a local choice of an important service is not only a tragedy for the local community but affects individual lives as well. The invaluable hardware shop, Bond and White, on Muswell Hill Road, will be closing on 31 July due to a huge rent rise and the demand for a new 25-year lease. This closure will result in the loss of 10 jobs for experienced staff.

You could take the view that it is a free market and if the landlord can find someone to pay more – then he is entitled. I don’t take that view. The market doesn’t work fully and effectively as many of the costs and benefits involved are not reflected in the market prices – for example if the loss of small local shops makes more people travel to big shopping centres, the congestion and pollution that can cause doesn’t get costed and included in the rent level negotiations for the small shops in the first place. Moreover, there has to be some fairness in the system – and the little businesses cannot pay the key money to get into the market or the high rents that the multiples can afford. That sort of obstacle to small businesses competing with large firms is another market failure, and that’s why we need policies to address them.

Two in particular appeal to me – landlords should be more willing to let small and new businesses pay a smaller proportion of their rent in advance, until the business and the cashflow builds up. In addition, just as we are used to the idea that property developers should provide some affordable housing when making housing developments, why shouldn’t shopping developments have similar conditions – if you get to make a big new retail development, part of the quid pro quo could be that you have to provide some affordable retail spaces. And in the cases of Muswell Hill and Highgate, please please Haringey Council finally learn the lesson – and properly consult with local businesses and residents before you next come up with parking plans in the area!

(c) Lynne Featherstone, 2007

As Blair trolls around Africa on his farewell tour playing dress up withColonel Gaddafi, the situation in Darfur continues to worsen.

We shouldn’t be beating about the bush – this is genocide. The Sudaneseregime is one of the most brutal and destabilising in the world today.Some 400,000 Darfuris have perished due to the measures taken againstthem by the Government of Sudan and allied militias.

Two and a half years ago, Tony Blair took a stand saying that’international focus on Darfur will not go away while the situationremains outstanding’. But that stand was only temporary – for last year,Salah Gosh – the Sudanese security chief who orchestrates the violencein Darfur – was twice "welcomed" to this country.

And this wasn’t another case of the Government failing to keep track ofwho is coming in or out – for he was granted a visa to come and getmedical treatment. What a sickening contrast between the treatment hegot from this country and the treatment he is responsible for dishingout to hundreds of thousands in Darfur.

Our unwillingness to act on violence in Darfur has assured theGovernment of Sudan that it can commit gross violations of human rightswith impunity. The regime in Sudan has played the internationalcommunity for fools. Despite promises the African Union troops have notgot to work – and there are still no UN peacekeepers in Darfur.

Taking action on Darfur

So what is to be done? First and foremost, we need to stop the killing. The AU troops must be deployed. And if we need more leverage – then we need to get China and Russia fully on board.

We need to stop the Sudan Government bombing Darfur with immediate and urgent action to assess the feasibility of a verifiable no-fly zone.

We need an immediate and serious extension of the UN arms embargo.

We need to hit those orchestrating the violence where it hurts: impose travel bans and asset freezes on all the individuals named in the UN’s own Commission of Inquiry and Panel of Experts reports and those named by the International Criminal Court.

We also need to stop the flow of money that Khartoum needs to pay for all this genocide – which means the UK and EU targeting those companies that are providing Sudan with revenue, arms and diplomatic cover.

What we can do for Darfur

But we shouldn’t just wait for others to act. There are actions all usindividuals can and should take too, from lobbying some of the keydecision makers for the above to publicising the need for action andindeed putting pressure on other bodies – such as local councils – whichmay have funds invested with firms that are supporting the Sudaneseregime.

So whilst I am hoping to be called to speak in a debate in Parliament onSudan (which will have taken place by the time you read this), I alsowant to set up a local "Darfur Group" to campaign for effective actionat local, national and international levels.

Just go back a moment and re-read the figure I gave near the start ofthis article: 400,000 killed in Darfur. Exact population figures are(unsurprisingly) hard to get, but Darfur’s population is in the six toseven million range. The UK’s population is around 60 million. So theequivalent would be something approaching 4,000,000 people being killedin the UK – or around 13,000 to 14,000just in Haringey.

Those numbers are almost unbelievably large and completely dwarfanything like the 9/11 tragedy (where New York’s official death toll wasjust short of 3,000).

That’s why thinking about just raising the issue (again) in Parliamentseems somehow quite inadequate. I am determined to campaign activelywith local like-minded people to put pressure on at all levels – on Haringey Council (to ensure their investments aren’t helping sustain the Government inKhartoum), on our Government, the EU, the UN and any government that canput pressure on the Sudanese Government to end this murder.

So – get in touch, let’s start a local group, and let’s do more for Sudan and chip away at that awful sense of the meagreness of the UK’s response to such monstrous brutality.

If we don’t act, who will?

(c) Lynne Featherstone, 2007

I was listening to Nick Ferrari (LBC Radio) the other morning – the morning it was reported that a Fatwa had been issued against Nilofar Bakhtiar, the Pakistan tourism minister. She had been doing a parachute jump to raise money for charity for the victims of the Pakistan earthquake. On landing, she hugged her male instructor who had done the jump with her. The published photograph of this offended a group of clerics who demanded she be sacked for immoral behaviour and issued the Fatwa. She offered to resign – criticising the lack of support from fellow ministers – but (at time of writing) her resignation has been rejected by the Prime Minister, who now says she has the government’s backing.

The question Ferrari was posing was – how does Islam sit with the modern world? A member of the Muslim Council of Great Britain came on air and made some good points. He thought the criticisms of the minister were ridiculous – and pointed out that “Muslims” aren’t all one group who think alike, and indeed the Muslim population in Britain is on the whole more moderate and modern.

He also pointed out all nations have ‘out of the ordinary’ members of society such as (to take a Christian example) Jehovah’s Witnesses – who won’t allow a blood transfusion even if it means dying.

So – just as it would be wrong to extrapolate from their views to those of other Christians on the role of modern medicine and modern science, we should be careful about labelling all Muslims with the views of a small group too.

But there is a difference – and that is that extreme Muslims often also argue that their views should be imposed on everyone else too. Are those extreme Muslims numerous or few in number? How representative are the severe voices of more general feeling? Those are the doubts (and yes – even fears) that many non-Muslims have when confronted with such views.

In my own experience, those severe voices are in the very small minority amongst the Muslim population in the UK. But also, many non-Muslims know very few, if any, Muslims – and so when their attention is caught by the more extreme views (and aren’t they always the most attention grabbing?), fear comes in. Both sides of the equation – Muslim and non-Muslim – have a responsibility to break down those barriers of ignorance and fear.

For the Muslim population – that does mean accepting that living in this country means taking part at times in the whole community, and not just becoming a community apart that only interacts with itself (and I would apply just the same standard to – e.g. – English expats living in Spain). And it does also mean having a better acceptance of the standards and realities in the rest of the community.

I have one, instructive, experience of my own in this regard. When I conduct my surgeries (where people come to meet me to raise issues), I have one of my assistants with me to take notes. It so happens this is usually a man. More often than not, when an older Muslim gentleman comes to see me, he will address his remarks to my male assistant. And no matter how many times I say to him that I am the Member of Parliament and that the man is my assistant – he will almost automatically immediately return to addressing his remarks to my assistant.

So: the question mark is which path will Islam take ultimately? Will tradition or modernisation be the way forward?

(c) Lynne Featherstone, 2007