Anti-Semitism

Lord Mann Excerpts

Thursday 20th January 2011 Westminster Hall

[John Mann (Bassetlaw) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to hold this debate under your chairship, Ms Clark. We thank you for the appropriate and modern way in which you have consulted on how things should happen, which was noted and appreciated by all present.

I am pleased to see, for a Thursday afternoon, a significant attendance from all parts of the House. Many more would have liked to be present and to participate, not least Ministers and shadow Ministers who have informed me of their support for the debate and for the work of the all-party parliamentary group against anti-Semitism but who, under the conventions of Parliament, are required not to participate in a Back-Bench debate in Back-Bench time. Nevertheless, putting that on the record is appropriate.

More than five years ago, I commissioned the all-party inquiry into anti-Semitism, so ably chaired by my right hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Mr MacShane), who will be participating in the debate, if he catches the Chair’s eye. Much progress has been made over those five years, but much more remains to be done.

The basis of the inquiry, which included four different parties among the 14 elected Members comprising the panel, is that parliamentarians, like it or not, have a leadership role. Our responsibility is, first and foremost, to ensure that our own Parliament is free of prejudice, including any prejudiced remarks, whether made calculatedly to offend or ignorantly. Part of our success is that parliamentarians in this Parliament, even if any of them ever considered overstepping the mark in acceptable discourse, would step back. In fact, we have a clear understanding of what is acceptable, which is a marker for the rest of the country.

Our robust approach, first and foremost, has been to take responsibility in our own parties—although we work on a cross-party basis—for sorting out issues of racism and, specifically, anti-Semitism. In other words, we sort out our own parties before pointing the finger at our opponents. As has been stated on the Floor of the House, therefore, successes in fact have not required publicity precisely because of what we might call the re-education of those who choose to depart from the norms of normal debate—they are re-educated in their own parties—which is exactly how political parties should take responsibility. It is a credit to all parties, throughout the House, that they have been prepared to live up to their responsibilities—even so, more can be done.

In the previous Parliament, as well as the current one—under the previous and current Governments—I and others in all parties have been rightly prepared not to pick holes in the minutiae when dealing with Ministers who have taken what we want forward. We have praised them the more they have taken small risks to move things on, such as taking on civil servants and the establishment. We have been prepared to back them and not to use the normal foil in debate, criticising when everything we call for is not met.

Such behaviour is appropriate and, in that spirit, let me commend the responsible Minister in the current Government who, like his predecessors in other Governments, has been prepared to go significantly beyond the call of normal ministerial duty in the attention, the seriousness and—I do not think this is overstating it—the boldness in pushing forward the agenda that we need pushing forward. Although appropriate, that moral integrity and political courage have been appreciated well beyond parliamentarians.

As an all-party group, we will continue to back Ministers who are prepared to do things. If their initiatives are not as successful as they and we would like, we will not criticise them, but we will praise them for being prepared to take difficult initiatives, instead of sitting on the fence when it is easier to do that sometimes.

There has also been significant support from civil servants—Sally Sealey and Neil O’Connor of the Department for Communities and Local Government spring to mind, as well as others working alongside them. They have made a significant input in their briefings to Ministers, which wise Ministers have read, absorbed and acted on. Doubtless, they will continue to do so.

With such backing, we have seen other Ministers do things beyond the normal call of duty—although they are normally my political opponents, that ought to be put on the record—such as the Secretary of State for Education, with whom I often clash. However, on issues relating to anti-Semitism, he has done more than one would normally expect of a Minister in his position. That should go on the positive record for all parties.

The Minister for Universities and Science, who has a difficult portfolio when it comes to anti-Semitism, has also given us great encouragement in his months in office by his incisive understanding of the issues as they affect his portfolio and by his preparedness to take action. We commend those Ministers in particular, for being ahead of the game. We encourage others, who are doing their bit, to be ahead of the game, too, because anti-Semitism remains a major issue in this country and worldwide.

[Mrs Louise Ellman (Liverpool, Riverside) (Lab/Co-op)]

I fully agree with my hon. Friend in praising the efforts of Ministers in dealing with the issue. However, is he aware of the growing concern in the British Jewish community about rising levels of anti-Semitism, including anti-Semitic rhetoric? Do Ministers have a role in combating that?

[John Mann]

If my hon. Friend will forgive me, I will answer her question later in my remarks, when I will discuss such issues.

As a long-standing and internationally recognised expert and leader in combating anti-Semitism, my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs Ellman) is an example to us all. I thank her and use the opportunity of her intervention to advertise the meetings we have convened throughout the Jewish community since we received the Government response to our work as an all-party committee in December.

Locations for the meetings include Liverpool, where my hon. Friend is speaking, and certainly Leeds, Manchester, Oxford and London, but I will have forgotten some of the others. Members of Parliament from all parties are participating, not just explaining our good deeds, as it were, but taking on questions, comments and feedback from members of the Jewish community. Our first such event in Manchester was a huge success. It was well attended, and the rigorous debate by parliamentarians and the general public was well received. There will be more such events, which are an important aside to our work.

We must also put on the record our thanks to various groups. I refer to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests and the support that I receive both indirectly and directly from the Parliamentary Committee Against Anti-Semitism Foundation, chaired by Stephen Rubin, and the support given by staff and others to the work of the all-party group against anti-Semitism. All members of the group receive that support, and I include it in my declaration.

We are grateful for and welcome the support and advice that we receive from the Community Security Trust. Gerald Ronson, Richard Benson and their colleagues ensure that we engage with the issues and are alert to the problems at all times. The trust does a magnificent job that other countries could learn from. The Board of Deputies of British Jews has worked closely with us, as has the Holocaust Educational Trust, which has involved parliamentarians and their young constituents in an effective programme to educate young people about our history. Our appreciation for those bodies is significant.

[Neil Carmichael (Stroud) (Con)]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this timely and important debate. All hon. Members should oppose any form of anti-Semitic behaviour. It is our responsibility to create an environment where religious and racial toleration is part of a much bigger project. If we do not accept that everybody has a right to live as they please, we will not find it easy to deal with anti-Semitism.

[John Mann]

I agree with the hon. Gentleman. Our approach has always been to make it clear that when we deal with anti-Semitism, we deal with racism. Some people would be prepared—not necessarily happily—to be called anti-Semites. They would certainly love to be called anti-Zionists, which they would regard as an accolade. When they are described as racists, however, they do not like that term, even though it is accurate.

Our pitch is not that anti-Semitism is a greater evil than any other form of racism, but that it is not a lesser evil and that we will not tolerate it being seen as such. Others who deal with hatred—Islamophobia or homophobia, for example—could adopt some of our methods when advancing their fight against prejudice. With the expertise that we have built up, we are always happy to work with people who are undertaking such initiatives and, in our modest way, to share our experiences and see whether there are any common ties, experiences or lessons learned that other groups can use. There is a crossover, including in methodology.

Government responses have included the establishment of the interdepartmental working group across two Governments from different sides of the political equation. That group has involved the three largest political parties, which is testimony to our methodology. It would be easy to lose that consensus, but we said four or five years ago—not, in my case, in anticipation of losing an election and power—that our success would be demonstrated if there were a continuum should there be a change of Government. The methodology that we used and the way in which we have built cross-party consensus has succeeded, which is testimony to our approach.

Other Parliaments across the world could learn from that success. All too often, dealing with anti-Semitism has become wrapped up in political argy-bargy. Sectional interests rather than cross-party working have meant that those Parliaments have not advanced as they should have. The importance of our model should not be understated, because it gives a powerful message that Parliament stands as one. The transition to the new Government and, in a more complex way to the new coalition Government, demonstrates the proof of that model. There is a danger that that message could be lost in the good works and the successes, and people must understand why those things happen in order for progress to be maintained in the immediate future and the longer term.

[Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)]

First, I apologise that I cannot stay until the end of the debate. The hon. Gentleman has discussed a crossover in methodology, and I wanted to seek his comments on something that the Community Security Trust is doing, and the methodology that it uses to protect the Jewish community. It is working with people of another faith that are suffering similar threats, and helping them to enhance their security. That is a good crossover in methodology, and I welcome the fact that the CST has taken on that role.

[John Mann]

That is testimony to the CST’s approach. Undoubtedly, that powerful joint experience will strengthen the CST as well as its partners from other communities.

Another significant development that will be increasingly important in the future is the establishment, for the first time, of an Institute for the Study of Contemporary Anti-Semitism at Birkbeck college. I estimate that 400 people attended the inaugural lecture by Professor David Feldman, which is a significant number. The intellectual interrogation that is needed to draw on and analyse lessons from around the world is already of huge value to us, and we look forward to working closely with that institute. It is a landmark for this country. There is too much in London for my liking, but on this occasion I will excuse that, because Birkbeck is conveniently nearby. That is perhaps the only praise that London will receive from me in this Parliament.

[Mr Denis MacShane (Rotherham) (Lab)]

As an honorary fellow of Birkbeck college, I cannot allow that slightly anti-Bloomsbury square remark to pass unnoticed. However, I have been talking to vice-chancellors in the north of England, because I agree with my hon. Friend that the study of anti-Semitism is something that we should root into our university disciplines as well as in our schools.

--- Later in debate ---

[John Mann]

Betwixt my constituency and that of my right hon. Friend is Sheffield. Perhaps one of the universities there will choose to get involved in this. That would be, if not an immediate priority, a welcome development in the future.

Let me put on the record some of the ways in which things have moved forward. Police forces record anti-Semitic hate crimes, and the first official statistics on anti-Semitic hate crime were released by the Association of Chief Police Officers on 30 November 2010. There is the Crown Prosecution Service review into the disparity between anti-Semitic incidents and the joint Government and charitable sector inter-faith school linking programme, championed by the Pears Foundation. Sir Andrew Burns has been appointed as the UK’s first envoy for post-holocaust issues. He is a great champion, and his work will have an impact. We welcome that appointment and look forward to working closely with him over the coming years. There has been international replication of our model of an all-party inquiry. Canada, Italy and Germany have all, in different ways, replicated what we have done. Following the successful London conference, there was a successful Canadian-led conference in Ottawa, addressed by the Canadian Prime Minister and many others. Indeed, 51 countries participated. We are making a mark in showing our successes but also being honest about our failures. Others are picking up on that and learning from their successes and failures as well.

The Government recently announced that the burden on Jewish parents in paying for school security guards would be addressed with Government money. The inquiry recognised that as a priority. It is not a gesture but significant practical support from Government.

We have been very active and have more members than ever before in Parliament. In addition, successive Governments have been highly and appropriately engaged on the issue. Nevertheless, 2009 was the worst year for anti-Semitic incidents that the CST has ever recorded, and 2010 is not likely to be much better. Those incidents continue, and often the issues are linked to the ongoing conflict in the middle east. It behoves the Government to ensure that at times of increased tension, communication plans are in place to keep community cohesion at its most effective. Of course, the attempts to boycott Israel have been repeatedly denounced by successive Governments. In response to such attempts, the Britain-Israel research and academic exchange initiative, with Foreign and Commonwealth Office support, is a practical step towards increased, rather than reduced, academic collaboration, and a step forward towards peace. We commend successive Governments for their approach to that.

More progress is needed on a few issues, one of which is internet hate. We look forward to the promised ministerial conference, convened via the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, on internet hate. That will be significant, and we look forward to guidelines being published on establishing mechanisms for complaint, which will empower those in the communities directly affected. We also look forward to a potential American initiative that will involve meeting directly and challenging the Googles and Microsofts of this world on precisely what they are, and are not, doing, to try to ensure that there is consistency of approach at a high level. I am certain that if our colleagues in the US Congress can organise such meetings, we will in some way be able to get representatives to participate in them, because the internet is an important priority in countering race hate.

The position is similar with newspapers. I noted the potential best practice emanating from the Manchester Evening News, which has a proactive moderating policy on the blogs and comment pages that it runs. All too often, however, newspapers say that it is beyond them to moderate highly offensive and inflammatory remarks. I do not think that that is beyond them; I think that there is a duty and responsibility in that respect. With regard to the online press in particular, we need to see that as a priority in the next year.

I implore the Minister to take these issues back to the Government, unless he has more information for us. The issues include reviewing the Press Complaints Commission guidelines to ensure that groups as well as individuals can register complaints. The areas of the media and the internet are big priorities in the next year. We are looking for more Government action to move the agenda on, not least because the Attorney-General’s office has successfully managed to prosecute those who have used vile and racist internet sites hosted abroad. We have made a breakthrough that the rest of the world is interested in and which is of huge significance, but we need to develop beyond that. It must not just be a case of isolated prosecutions that are important because they have been successful.

The Government need to take the issue directly to the European Union. Is it beyond the European Union to have some common standards relating to the internet that would greatly enhance what has happened in this country? That should be within our reach. I appreciate that there are different views on how good and useful, or useless, an institution it is, but whatever one’s views, it exists and we can agree to resource it amply. However, despite the history of the origins of the EU, the Commission has never, ever seen fighting anti-Semitism as part of its remit, which must change. Addressing the internet would be a good start, and dealing with education would also be significant. That needs to be in the work programme that the European Commissioners have every time that they are appointed, that the European Parliament can comment on, and that, as necessary, the Council of Ministers can be involved in.

[Mrs Ellman]

I applaud my hon. Friend for drawing attention to the very serious phenomenon of internet hate. Does he agree that messages of anti-Semitic hate, often coming from Islamic sources, should be challenged in a much stronger way than they are at the moment?

[John Mann]

The case that was prosecuted—the Sheppard and Whittle case—involved what we could call a Nazi website, hosted in the United States, but jihadist-style or simply offensive websites, allegedly coming from, for example, Saudi Arabia, are a major problem. The United States and Saudi Arabia are allies of ours. They are generally friendly and helpful countries. However, they have a different approach. In the United States, it is about the freedom of speech. We need an approach that moves forward this agenda. The interesting issue with the Sheppard and Whittle case is that we were able to prosecute in this country actions directly related to the use of hate sites abroad. If we could get such action fully entrenched in this country and developed across the European Union, it would have a significant practical impact, but it also would allow dialogue, be it with the Saudis or with the Americans, from a position of some strength in terms of what is there, so that we could attempt to eradicate all internet sites that are peddling race hate, from whatever direction they come. Of course, that is significant because it is the extremists, not the normal, general, common-sense people of this country, who are attracted to such sites.

Let me mention other priorities. I shall be reasonably brief on those, because I know that other hon. Members will want to discuss them. For Government, higher education is a top priority. Another organisation that we are delighted to co-operate with, the Union of Jewish Students, is having a lobby of Parliament. I hope that hon. Members in this Chamber and beyond will meet its representatives and hear at first hand their experiences of studying in universities. Our position is clear, but it is worth repeating. In an atmosphere that is widely recognised as the most tolerant in this tolerant and democratic country, the fact is that one group of students feels that it does not have the same freedoms as others. I have described that as a consequence of antisocial behaviour. It impacts on their ability to have the same freedoms as other students, and magnifies the importance of such problems well beyond what is seen in the rest of society. Those universities, as learning institutions, must therefore be exemplary in their approach. I hope that the Government will consider the successful agreement that has been negotiated and enacted at the university of Manchester. I do not declare an interest, because it is many years since I studied there and I am discussing current students and the present administration.

That model could be used in universities across the country—it could also be used abroad, not least in north America—to set the role and remit of universities and to say how students should complain and how the outside world, including us, should evaluate and monitor the effectiveness of the procedures that have been put in place. That is an important breakthrough, and I hope that the Government will give appropriate time and energy to it, as far too many of our university institutions are paralysed whenever there is a problem and do not know what to do. There is a model for universities, and they will receive our support.

With students wanting to study at university, we, as a democratic society, cannot have the kind of incidents that we saw at the London School of Economics in December. It was not only the comments of Abdel Bari Atwan that were unacceptable, because the behaviour that resulted from them was equally unacceptable. That is not tolerance, and it is not free speech. Protocols in universities, such as the one enacted by Manchester, need to be spread to all universities. If we get that this year, it will be a magnificent achievement for Parliament and an accolade for the Government, who will have our support in pushing the universities because the issue is important.

The Minister for Universities and Science has committed himself to making clear the Government’s position on speakers on campus, and we look forward to hearing what the Government have to say about that. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will commission a departmental review and update our freedom of speech guidance.

I shall speak next about elections. There has been controversy on elections, and there may be more today. I give an example. During the last election, the Muslim Public Affairs Committee explicitly targeted six Zionists. I believe that it regards Zionists as an insult. I made a lengthy submission to the Committee on Standards in Public Life on the subject, in which I asked whether it is fair in a democracy that a group from outside can spend resources targeting people in that way—whoever they target, and from whatever direction—because it puts them at an unfair disadvantage.

[Mr MacShane]

I was targeted by the Muslim Public Affairs Committee; its rather stupid leaflet said, “Vote BNP to get rid of MacShane”. An ultra-Islamist group was inviting the anti-Semitic BNP to dethrone me. It was not a problem in Rotherham, but it was in Oldham East and Saddleworth. It is an evil group, and my hon. Friend is right to draw attention to it.

[John Mann]

The Equality and Human Rights Commission is struggling with elections. We may need to write our own code of conduct this year on how elections should be run and what should happen if candidates believe that things have been done that they find inappropriate. There is a void there, and it crosses all parties. The issue is not in one direction, and it goes many different ways.

The main political parties, as well as the smaller ones, have a responsibility to ensure that candidates or complainants, including those from the community, have clear guidance on what they should do, both at the time and retrospectively. I fear that the problem is becoming too big, too quickly. Some claim success, however irrelevant their participation has been in the campaign, which emboldens more extreme action and more extreme language. If we can get agreement, we should publish our own code of practice this year outside the general election cycle. There are, of course, always elections, but we should do so well in advance of the next general election. It could be launched in the run up to the next election, with a lengthy lead-in to ensure that we get it right. That could provide a significant service. Attempting to do it may move things on in what is a tricky but rather indelicate area. If we do not, it will be to the detriment of all political parties, rather nastily and viciously, in elections to come.

I next highlight football. I do so because there is a huge danger in eastern Europe that the new Nazis will coalesce under the banner of white power using football, which may become a big problem in this country. They have not yet made huge inroads here, although groups of fanatics and thugs have made small ones using the internet. Immediately before the Olympics, the 2012 football championship will be hosted by Ukraine and Poland. It could be rather difficult, as there will be many opportunities for outrageous behaviour by those who choose deliberately to offend, and it can happen quickly and easily. Through the police and Home Office, we have great knowledge and expertise in dealing with football hooliganism and extremism. We need to lend more support to Poland and Ukraine to ensure that those countries are not caught short. It is a PR disaster waiting to happen, with extremists using the opportunity to spread their propaganda and to incite people.

I was asked by the Football Association 18 months ago to chair a working group on anti-Semitism and Islamophobia, with many people in the football world involved. I politely asked the FA, which has a new chief executive, to respond to the report submitted by my working group, because in the big money world of football as well as at the grass roots there is a responsibility to ensure that our most inclusive of sports is inclusive at every level. It must act when people attempt to use what I regard as our national sport to perpetrate race hatred. Football should be in the lead, so I await the Football Association’s response. It is about time that it did so, and I hope that it does so productively and positively.

I speak now about the international agenda and Europe. An increasing number of people in eastern Europe, including some politicians, are attempting to equate the holocaust and what happened in their countries with what happened in Soviet times. My right hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham and I were heavily involved, as were others here today, in what could best be described as anti-Soviet or anti-communist activities, not least with the international trade union movement and other organisations. We have a long track record in that respect. We understand what happened in Soviet times, but it is fundamentally dangerous, wrong and inaccurate to equate the two.

Equating the two provides an excuse for what happened to the Jewish community in, for example, Lithuania, where 94% of its members were murdered in a short period, and where many Lithuanians were involved in murdering their fellow nationals. It is fundamentally wrong and dangerous to equate things in that way, and we need to challenge that practice, because the more it takes hold, the more difficult things will be for Jewish communities in those countries, and the easier it will be for extremists to ride on the back of false nationalism and whip up hysteria, as has already happened, not least in the Baltic states, as people campaign against the Jewish international media conspiracy, the Jewish bankers and so forth. Those are old concepts, but they are being used in the modern media in these countries.

[Sir Alan Beith (Berwick-upon-Tweed) (LD)]

The hon. Gentleman is of course right that there is a fundamental difference between what happened in Nazi Germany and what happened as a result of Soviet persecution of Jewish communities and discrimination against Jews. Surely, however, the problem with drawing such a distinction is that people must understand that if they tolerate anti-Semitism in any form, they are on a dangerous slope, which can lead to the events we saw in Europe and particularly in Germany.

[John Mann]

Absolutely. Our approach of being honest about the problems in our country, our Parliament and our political parties—in our own backyard—is exactly the approach that the countries I am talking about need to take if they are to come to terms with their history. That is what being part of the modern democratic world is about. These countries are now part of that world, and they need to understand their responsibilities and obligations. We should not accept lower standards from these new democracies than we do from the older democracies, including ours.

[Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing the debate at a most opportune time. Next week, the House will mark Holocaust memorial day. Does he agree that that puts down a very firm marker, which affirms many of the points that he has made? Holocaust memorial day is a very good way for Parliament to put on the record its support for many of the issues that he has addressed.

[John Mann]

I absolutely agree with the hon. Gentleman. I take it from his comments that we can include him as a member of our all-party group. Unless they shake their heads, we will also ensure that others present are added to our list, if they are not already on it. The hon. Gentleman’s intervention was appropriate, because the work done for Holocaust memorial day is significant in this country and elsewhere in the world.

I have a final plea and question for the Government. The Auschwitz-Birkenau Foundation needs to raise a significant sum—$120 million—to preserve the uniquely wicked and evil site at Auschwitz into the future. Many countries have contributed, including the Czech Republic, Sweden, Norway, Switzerland and Estonia. Germany, of course, has given €60 million. The United States has contributed $15 million. Austria has given €6 million. Even the city of Boulogne-Billancourt has made a contribution. It is important that we meet the commitments that the previous Prime Minister gave the project. That can be done over a period of years, and it can go beyond the current three-year financial planning—it can even be a commitment for future Governments, of whatever flavour. However, it is important that this Government give a firm and substantial commitment on behalf of us all that we will play our role in guaranteeing the future of this site. On behalf of Parliament and this country, our Government should give a significant sum, albeit over a period of years, as the US has done. That will guarantee that the learning that can come from the existence of this death camp is there for future generations.

With that, I thank hon. Members for the work they have done. To the Minister, I say that we will continue our work and that we will work with him. The more that he does, the happier we will be.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—