Antisemitism and Other Racism in Football

Debate between Theresa Villiers and Graham Stringer

Wednesday 22nd June 2022 Westminster Hall

[Theresa Villiers]

I totally agree that we need much more serious consequences for racism and antisemitism where it is displayed in football grounds, and the international football associations have a real role to play in delivering that outcome.

I want to highlight some of the positive work that is underway to tackle the kinds of problems I have spoken about. For example, in January 2018, Chelsea football club announced a “Say No To Antisemitism” campaign to raise awareness and educate their players, staff, fans and the wider community about antisemitism in football. In January 2020, it became the first club to adopt the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s definition of antisemitism. In December that year, the English Premier League also adopted that definition, and many clubs followed suit. The English Football League and the Football Association did so on Holocaust Memorial Day 2021. In February 2021, Kick It Out, the game’s leading anti-racism body, working with Lord Mann, prepared an action plan to combat antisemitism, which it launched at training workshops in London and Manchester.

This February saw another important development, this time at Tottenham. That brings me to the Y-word. I appreciate that it is a contested term, but there can be no doubt that it is widely viewed as offensive and racist—it is a term of abuse. Since the 1970s, I understand, it has featured in chants by Spurs supporters. The club has indicated that it was initially used as a response to a lack of action taken in relation to antisemitism directed at Spurs fans, so some supporters have historically used the word as a means of taking ownership of a term routinely used to insult the club’s sizeable Jewish following. However, Jewish groups have described it as antisemitic, whatever the context. Its inclusion in Tottenham chants is therefore offensive in itself, and can also trigger antisemitic responses, with consequent harms. As such, following a review of the issue, the club stated that

“it is time to move on from associating this term with our Club.”

It went on to say:

“The Club already refrains from engaging with any social media handle or bio that contains the Y-word and we do not permit it being printed on shirts in any official retail outlets or used in any official Club context”,

to which my response would be, “About time too.” I find it somewhat shocking that there could ever have been any question of that term appearing on shirts, or in official retail outlets.

While these various initiatives to root out antisemitism in football are very much to be welcomed, there is clearly much more to be done. The professional game needs to take this issue much more seriously than it does currently. It needs to deploy far more resources to combating antisemitism, holding those responsible for it to account, and making it clear to its supporters that antisemitism is wholly unacceptable. That must include programmes aimed at ensuring supporters understand the issue better and are made aware of the hurt and harm caused by antisemitism. Urgent action is needed to crack down on the online manifestation of football-related anti-Jewish racism.

The Football (Offences) Act 1991 made racist chanting that is

“threatening, abusive or insulting to a person”

an offence when committed within football grounds. The police need to take action when those offences are committed. They need to take antisemitic crime in the football arena much more seriously than they do at the moment, and there needs to be enforcement against this kind of behaviour online, as well. In July last year, the Government announced that football banning orders would be extended to cover racist attacks on footballers on social media, meaning online trolls could potentially be excluded from grounds for up to 10 years. The Prime Minister has called on tech companies to step up and take responsibility for what they publish.

The Online Safety Bill is now on its way through Parliament. This world-leading piece of legislation will require the big tech firms to do more to tackle harmful abuse posted on their platforms, both by preventing it in the first place and by taking it down when it appears. Under their new duty of care to users, companies will have to tackle antisemitism and racism on their platforms much more effectively than they do today. Platforms will need to have appropriate systems and processes in place to stop criminals using their services to spread hate, and they will need to respond more quickly than they do currently if someone posts racist comments, whether words, images, emojis or videos.

Companies that fail in this duty of care could face big fines of up to 10% of their global turnover. For major social media operators, that could amount to billions of pounds. I urge the Minister to ensure that the legislation is effective in combating antisemitism online. In particular, big tech companies must be required to address the risk that algorithmic recommendation tools and hashtags can amplify antisemitic and other racist content. Keeping people safe online and dealing with the torrent of hatred to which so many are subjected is one of the defining challenges of our time. The Government must rise to that challenge.

In conclusion, I have campaigned against antisemitism for many years. One of my first ever visits to this Parliament was as a student in the late 1980s, when I attended a lobby to call for Jewish refuseniks to be permitted to leave the Soviet Union where they were subject to discrimination and injustice, and to seek to persuade the Foreign Office to raise that with the Soviet leaders. I was also one of the co-authors of the 2006 report of the all-party inquiry into antisemitism. That ground breaking piece of work led to real change, including an obligation on all police forces to collect statistics on antisemitic crime.

I took part in both the recent debates on antisemitism in the House and the two public protests in Parliament Square denouncing the incidents of anti-Jewish racism in Labour. I find it deeply disturbing that this toxic prejudice is still present in our society. It is distressing that that form of racism is directed against a community for which I have such a high regard and which plays a hugely positive role among all the other communities in the diverse constituency of Chipping Barnet, which I am very proud to represent.

Antisemitism is a poison that dates back millennia. Millions have lost their lives to that vicious hatred over the centuries, culminating in the horrors of the Holocaust and industrialised killing. Every year on Holocaust Remembrance Day we make a commitment never to forget what happened and to remain always vigilant against antisemitism and racism.

Just this afternoon, I was at a meeting of the Holocaust Memorial APPG and we heard chilling testimony from a holocaust survivor, my constituent Mala Tribich. We must extend that vigilance to the beautiful game. It is hard to think of another pastime that generates such emotion in its followers. There is a visceral connection between fans and clubs, but no emotional connection justifies racist hatred and abuse of others. Let the message go out from this House today that antisemitism has no place in English football. It will not be tolerated and those responsible for it will be brought to justice.

[Graham Stringer (in the Chair)]

I intend to call the SNP spokesperson at 5.08pm in order to leave two minutes for the right hon. Lady to wind up. That leaves us with just over 20 minutes for the debate. There are five Members standing but I have been notified of three Members wishing to speak, so I hope people will respect the time and be brief. That applies to interventions as well. I call Rosie Duffield.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Theresa Villiers and Graham Stringer

Thursday 31st October 2019 Commons Chamber

[Theresa Villiers]

My hon. Friend is correct: current levels of plastic pollution are intolerable, and the Government are determined to tackle them. We will be introducing a system to incentivise plastic packaging producers to use more recyclable material, but also less material in general. We will be banning plastic stirrers and cotton buds. We are introducing a deposit return scheme on drinks containers. We will also be introducing more consistent recycling to help everyone to recycle more to tackle the terrible problem of plastics pollution.

[Graham Stringer (Blackley and Broughton) (Lab)]

Plastic was rare when I was brought up in the 1950s, so is it possible for the Government to set targets to get us back to those low levels? Recycling just delays the amount of plastic going into the environment.

[Theresa Villiers]

Our Environment Bill provides the opportunity for future Governments to set targets on the use of resources and recycling. Reducing the need for single-use plastics is an important part of this, but recycling will also be a crucial part in reaching our goal of eliminating avoidable plastic waste in the coming years. That is why we are seeking to increase the amount of plastic that is recyclable and is recycled.

Civil Aviation Bill

Debate between Theresa Villiers and Graham Stringer

Wednesday 25th April 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mrs Villiers]

As I shall come on to explain, I do not believe that the licensing regime is an appropriate mechanism to address issues relating to border controls.

The CAA sought initial views from industry in drafting the indicative licence. However, Parliament has not yet concluded its consideration of the Bill, so the CAA has not yet begun to consult on proposed licence conditions for each airport that will be subject to regulation. Until consultations have taken place no final decisions will be taken about what goes into the licence. However, if the Bill is passed as drafted the CAA will consider the extent to which it is necessary to include conditions on resilience and passenger welfare in the licence. The CAA expects activities that may be part of the new licence regime to include taking into account other obligations on service quality standards, and the success of codes of conduct and voluntary arrangements adopted by the industry. As the body with the relevant operational expertise, the CAA is well placed to determine appropriate and effective licence conditions. The amendments could undermine our goal of giving the specialist regulator a flexible toolkit to protect the passenger, so I hope that the Opposition will not press them to a vote.

[Graham Stringer]

I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. As ever, she is generous with her time in answering questions. My question is slightly rhetorical. Does she accept it is much more difficult for such airports as Heathrow, which operates at 99% capacity, to be resilient?

--- Later in debate ---

[Graham Stringer]

Amendments 2 and 1—that is the order in which they appear on the selection list—may be considered to be either relatively minor or the most important amendments to the Bill, depending on how they are interpreted.

This is the “minor” aspect. I asked in Committee why the word “effectiveness” was not included in clause 1(3)(c) and clause 2(4)(c), along with the words “economy” and “efficiency”. The Minister’s responses are always very courteous and comprehensive, but on this occasion, unusually, I was not satisfied that there was a good reason for the absence of the word “effectiveness”.

When I was more centrally involved in local government, we regularly spoke to the Audit Commission. It used to refer to the “three E’s”—effectiveness, efficiency and economy—and used to joke that “economy” was usually left out. That is not surprising in view of the dictionary definitions of all three words. “Effectiveness” apparently means

“to accomplish the purpose, producing expected results.”

The meaning of “efficiency” is self-evident:

“performing or functioning in the best possible manner with the least waste of time and effort”.

Those are clear and relatively objective terms. “Economic”, however, is defined as

“pertaining to the production, distribution, and use of income, wealth, and commodities.”

It is a much more general term, and it is the one that the Audit Commission used to say was left out. Why on earth do clauses 1 and 2 not state that the holders of licences should be effective, which is surely very important? Although I consider that to be the relatively minor aspect of the amendments, it goes to the heart of the Bill. As I have said on a number of occasions, although the Bill gives the CAA new responsibilities to look after the interests of consumers, it does not tell us either how that is to be done or what the consumer’s interests are.

The Bill states that the CAA must oversee airports to ensure that there is continuity, and that air transport services have regard to

“the range, availability, cost and quality of airport operation services.”

That in itself is fair enough, but the Bill does not give the CAA the overarching purpose of improving aviation and ensuring that it continues to form a major part of the United Kingdom economy.

Our demand for the inclusion of the word “effectiveness” highlights the strong deficiency in the Bill that we debated in Committee. No real political controversy is involved in changing the nature of the functions of the CAA, whether we are talking about the regulation of air space or the ensuring of economy and safety. That is not a matter of great debate between the parties. There is a great debate between Members and parties, however, about how aviation should develop and whether we should continue to be a leading country in aviation, and about whether our economy, which depends on aviation, should be hindered by not having the aviation facilities we deserve. I could make a very long speech about these matters. I shall not do so, but I do want to make a few important points.

I believe that many Conservative Members, and many members of the Government, want to improve our aviation facilities, including by increasing the capacity of airports in south-east England. Unfortunately, however, they are caught in a situation where the tail is wagging the dog. Indeed, there are two tails. Dogs with two tails are usually known to be particularly happy, but not in this instance. There is the Lib Dem tail, as the Lib Dems have for historical—and, I think, mistaken—reasons always opposed increasing airport capacity in south-east England. The Government tail is also being wagged by Boris Johnson, current Mayor of London, who believes he can win the mayoral election only by opposing the expansion of airports within the London system, and by proposing instead an absurd island airport in far east London—in the Thames estuary, in fact. That may be good for his chances in the mayoral election, but it is extremely bad for the country.

[Mrs Villiers]

I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the Government’s policy on airport capacity is not driven by tails or dogs or anything like that. It is driven by an understanding of the importance of ensuring that aviation has the space to grow, but also that it does so within parameters that address the local impacts of aviation, such as aircraft noise and air quality, which, as I am sure the hon. Gentleman will agree, can be corrosive. We also need aviation to play its part in our efforts to tackle climate change. Our approach is, and always will be, based on a sound and sensible assessment of the evidence on how best to have a growing aviation industry that also plays its part in addressing its environmental impacts.

[Graham Stringer]

The Minister makes a consistent case on that, but she will not be surprised to learn that I do not accept it. The noise around airports is diminishing as planes get quieter, and air quality is regulated by European regulations, with most of the pollution around airports being caused by cars and other road traffic. That needs to be dealt with, but the levels are set by European regulations, and those levels cannot be surpassed.

Those arguing against increasing airport capacity often say that that will help in our commitments to reducing carbon dioxide emissions. As we demonstrated in Committee however, that is not the case, because as a result passengers on intercontinental journeys often have to fly via other countries, so they have to take off twice, which produces extra pollution and extra carbon dioxide.

If the Government carry through their intention to put aviation into the European emissions trading scheme, as with the polluter on the ground, aviation will be dealt with on a Europe-wide basis, so we do not need an extra domestic policy to address the issue. The Government’s current policy is strangling the British economy.

--- Later in debate ---

[Graham Stringer]

I could not agree more. Before the debate, I looked up on the internet how many cities in China have a population of more than 1 million—the size of Birmingham. There are 160 cities that are bigger than or the same size as Birmingham and five cities that are bigger than London, three of which are not very well known. The biggest, Chongqing, has a population of 31.4 million, but how many air routes do we have to Chongqing? There are routes to Shanghai from London but from nowhere else in the UK. The others are Beijing, Guangzhou—or Canton, as most people would know it—and Tianjin. Those cities are all bigger than London and there are very few routes to them. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) mentioned India, Brazil, Russia and China. This country wants to be the centre of the financial world through the City of London and, as Europe gets itself into a mess with deflation, our future must increasingly rely on trading with the growing economies of the world. However, at the same time, we are cutting off our links.

[Mrs Villiers]

I can reassure the hon. Gentleman that he should not necessarily believe all the propaganda he reads on the posters in Westminster tube station. If flights to Hong Kong are taken into account, Heathrow delivers more services to China than any of its continental rivals. London is one of the best connected cities in the world. We have five highly successful airports serving the south-east, six if we count Southend.

[Graham Stringer]

Since the second world war, as the Minister will know, Heathrow has been the largest international airport in the world. Soon it will no longer be that. It is still bigger than Frankfurt as regards its international destinations, but—I do not have the figures in front of me—the number of destinations served by Heathrow has gone from something like 220 to 180. Increasingly, the passenger numbers are going up because larger aeroplanes are going to fewer and fewer destinations.

I wanted to make both that small point about why the word “effective” is not in the first two clauses and the larger point that I would like not only the words to be in the Bill but there to be an effective aviation policy, which the Government do not have. On this issue, although not necessarily on others, the Government’s policies are anti-business and anti-growth. They are damaging the UK economy and they need to change them. Changing the wording of the Bill would help.