Holocaust Memorial Day

Debate between James Brokenshire and Andrew Percy

Thursday 23rd January 2020 Commons Chamber

[Andrew Percy]

I cannot disagree with a word that the right hon. Lady says. As she has powerfully outlined in previous debates, she has been on the receiving end of vile antisemitic abuse. This does come from the leadership down. Leadership is needed from all of us, but there should be no doubt about the position of our political leaders.

That is why I agree with the Minister’s comments and urge colleagues to sign up to the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance definition. The APPG sat in Portcullis House for a very long time yesterday to encourage colleagues to sign up. Many still have not done so, but I ask them please to sign up to the IHRA definition, because that is one way in which all of us can demonstrate leadership and show our commitment to zero tolerance of antisemitism.

Of course, antisemitism and antisemitic tropes were the beating heart of Nazism, yet in the past few years there has been a resurgence of holocaust denial, and the holocaust has been distorted and denigrated. Sadly, the context is worsening, particularly online. An American study from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology found that fake news is 70% more likely to be shared on social media than a true story. The Antisemitism Policy Trust and the Community Security Trust have found that the number of searches for “holocaust hoax” on Holocaust Memorial Day is 30% above the average for the rest of the year. If someone types the words “Jew joke” into Google, they will find some of the most shocking and disgusting antisemitic, holocaust-minimising and racist bile they can find. This all occurs in an online space that impacts on our real world, and a particular concern at the moment is seen in the use of gaming, with gamers targeted as a route into antisemitism. That surprised me, but perhaps it does make sense, and we have to do a lot about that.

As the Institute for Jewish Policy Research has shown, the chances are that while only 2.5% of the public may be what we would understand as antisemites, one antisemitic opinion is likely to be held by some 30% of the public. Therefore, the chances of encountering antisemitism in this country are relatively high. That is not to say that 30% of people in this country are antisemitic—of course not—but it is certainly the case that we hear casual things such as, “But of course the Jews do seem to be very wealthy.” The people who say such things would not consider themselves antisemitic, but they will use such a trope. They casually throw it in without, as I say, considering themselves to be antisemitic.

[James Brokenshire]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on his election to his new role on the all-party group. He makes a very important point about education. I have had the privilege, I would say, of going to Auschwitz and Buchenwald and actually seeing the reality. I know the power of taking such an education to a new generation. Will he comment on the work of the Holocaust Educational Trust to see a new generation really appreciating such an education and the power of young ambassadors taking forward a message to ensure that we really do never forget?

[Andrew Percy]

Absolutely.

Stronger Towns Fund

Debate between James Brokenshire and Andrew Percy

Monday 4th March 2019 Commons Chamber

[Andrew Percy (Brigg and Goole) (Con)]

I welcome the fund, especially the funding for Yorkshire and northern Lincolnshire, as we prefer to call it. When I was Minister for local growth, I trotted up to No. 10 and pitched something very similar, but I was not as effective as the current ministerial team, so I congratulate them. I agree with the point made by the hon. Member for Wigan (Lisa Nandy). When I was responsible for the local growth fund—there were good reasons for it—I was frustrated by the fact that much of it was predicated on a city-centric model, so can we have an assurance this time that, important as investment in cities is on a sub-regional basis, this will absolutely be focused on our towns, and we will seek to work in partnership with things such as the coastal communities fund and the new future high streets fund so that we have a proper, joined-up policy in this regard?

[James Brokenshire]

I welcome what my hon. Friend has said on that join-up and on the potential that it offers between the different funds, and his emphasis on towns. Yes, the focus thus far has been on cities, which is why this is about setting out a different course, recognising that towns in many ways have been left behind. It is why we need to focus more on seeing the solutions at that level, where we can make a significant difference, and I look forward to working with him as we take that forward.

Police Reform and Social Responsibility Bill

Debate between James Brokenshire and Andrew Percy

Thursday 31st March 2011 Commons Chamber

[James Brokenshire]

Strangely enough, this Government do not believe in central targets. The hon. Lady tempts me down that path, but I have to say that I have no specific target. I refer her to the regulatory impact assessment, which she will have read assiduously, as it sets out the level of fees forecast. The regulatory impact assessment sought to examine possible options and estimate what might be recovered by the late-night levy. Rather than count up the number of local authorities, however, I point her to that assessment. We hope it will be successful.

[Andrew Percy]

The Minister is generous with his time and in being willing to take some of our points into account. I welcome the suggestion that we might be able to find a way, by means of regulation, of excluding village pubs such as the ones in my area. The problem with the alcohol disorder zones was not necessarily the setting of the boundaries, but the paperwork and bureaucracy that went with them. I commend to the Minister one area of law that seems to have worked very well—the designated alcohol zones. These are no-drinking zones, which have a set boundary and were quite easy to set up in comparison with ADZs. Having boundaries or setting boundaries around problem areas is not necessarily that complicated if we ensure that the process is simplified.

[James Brokenshire]

There might be a distinction to be drawn between seeking to calculate costs and charges as with the ADZs, and local byelaws drawn up by some local authorities. As I have already said, the early morning alcohol restriction orders are relevant, along with cumulative impact zones. They show that there are ways of seeking to control the behaviour of individuals within a particular area. Calculating costs and levying charges and fees for licences appropriately has to be done in a broader way to make it effective so that we do not get drawn down into the bureaucratic mechanism that we are seeking to put to bed in respect of the alcohol disorder zone.

DNA and CCTV (Crime Prevention)

Debate between James Brokenshire and Andrew Percy

Tuesday 6th July 2010 Westminster Hall

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (James Brokenshire)]

I welcome you to the Chair, Mr Amess. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) on securing the debate and on raising a number of important issues. I noted the initial comments of the right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz), and it is interesting to see the coalitions that can sometimes form during a debate. I do not know whether it includes the right hon. Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint), but a coalition has certainly been created in this debate.

Perhaps I can reassure my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley and other hon. Members by saying that I absolutely agree with what they said about the importance of DNA and CCTV in tackling crime. My hon. Friend referred to comments that I made, not necessarily in a previous life, but in a previous seat. I certainly believe in the importance of CCTV, which can be harnessed in such a way as to protect our communities.

In many ways—to take the point made by the right hon. Member for Don Valley about many people’s perception or fear of crime within their community—CCTV can be an important tool for that if it is used effectively with the appropriate framework and public support. That point was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Stourbridge (Margot James). I do not want to give the impression that the Government are fundamentally opposed in some way to CCTV cameras. They have an important role in supporting communities and aiding the police in their work.

[Andrew Percy]

Will the Minister give way?

[James Brokenshire]

I should like to make some progress; I need to reply to several speeches, and I might need to take an intervention from an hon. Member who did not get called to speak.

The interesting and perhaps central point in the debate is the balance between the right of the public to be protected from crime and the right of individuals to live their lives without unnecessary state intrusion. That has been at the forefront of many of the speeches this morning. It has been interesting, and there have been some important contributions. I hear what my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley said about drawing a distinction between certain freedoms, which he articulated with reference to ID cards, which he sees as an intrusion, as against CCTV surveillance or the retention of DNA profiles, which he did not see as an intrusion in the same way. Clearly, not everyone shares that view, as we have seen in connection with developments in Birmingham; indeed, many cases from constituency postbags, to do with DNA profiles, for example, show that the issue is considered significant for the way the state may perceive individuals who have done no wrong. That private life interest is involved in the balance.

There have been comments about the role of the police. We have certainly discussed issues with ACPO and other police representatives and shall continue to do so as we progress with and publish our detailed proposals, so that the House can give them proper consideration. I am sure that we are only at the start of discussion of those important issues, which is why I welcome the speeches that have been made, albeit that, while it is a pleasure to continue in debate with the hon. Member for Tynemouth (Mr Campbell), he and I have probably debated the issues six or seven times in the past couple of years and I am reconciled to our not reaching complete agreement. We do, however, find agreement in the importance we place on public safety and the need for checks and balances on the retention of DNA. Although I may the other day have made a pejorative suggestion about the hon. Gentleman supporting the indefinite retention of DNA, I recognise that at the time in question that was not his position: there was recognition of a need for some restrictions on the retention period and related matters. We may not be wholly on the same page, but I recognise that there is at least some agreement about some issues.