| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
19 July 2007 : Column 161WH—continued
The report set a good precedent for co-operation between parties. As the first of the Front-Bench speakers,
I can say that it is my party’s intention to offer full co-operation with the Government, on a party basis, on ensuring that the recommendations are not just implemented but vigorously pursued. We need to remind ourselves on occasions that just as we urge ethnic and faith groups in the outside world to work together towards common objectives and to promote social cohesion, there are occasions when political parties have to do the same. In dealing with this matter, my party is ready to do that formally and informally.
We also need to recognise—perhaps this is the first of the outsider’s viewpoints—that we can get very wrapped up in recognising what the problem is but not face up to the fact that there are legitimate and deeply held differences within society and between faiths and ethnic groups. We must accept that at every phase we need to work together to achieve common objectives while recognising the right of others to have different views and to express them robustly on occasion. I want to place it on the record that we believe that the common values on which we need to work together are the preservation of a free and fair society in this country, and the protection of minorities and of minority rights. That is right ethically and, for some of us, is right from a religious perspective. In addition, on a much more utilitarian basis, a safer, more prosperous and secure society for everybody can only delivered be through such an approach. In other words, we are driven by both a pragmatic and an ethical response.
I want to say clearly that nothing can justify hate crime, whether that constitutes terror attacks at one end of the spectrum or sending people to Coventry at the other. It is quite right for the law and society to put measures in place that punish and deter people from hate crimes and avoid such situations occurring. A foundation for that has been put in place by the report when it mentions adopting a common and widely understood definition of what discrimination is. It says that the methodology of the Stephen Lawrence inquiry should be adopted and that it is what appears to be discriminatory to the victim that counts. I was very impressed by the inquiry’s report of the work of the Community Security Trust, of which I was not previously aware. I was also impressed by what the trust has done—perhaps not deliberately—to rebut one of the criticisms of such an approach to a definition of discrimination, which is that if discrimination is defined according to the eyes of the victim, that may provoke a lot of groundless complaints based on other causes. The evidence is there for that in the report and it should be put on the record that the Community Security Trust is rigorous in weeding out complaints that are not in fact about anti-Semitism. I hope that those who might be inclined to criticise that process will take note of that as it is an important rebuttal.
I come now to recording, which is the first matter that I want to ask the Government about. The report states that only seven of the 43 police forces in England have effective ways of recording anti-Semitic incidents. The Government’s response to recommendation 7 is pretty faint-hearted. It does not say anything about changing things, but simply states that they are in favour of things getting better. I would like the Minister to say in plain terms what he plans to do about the recording of incidents.
My second question is, to which Minister should I address my remarks? We might have expected the Minister who deals with local government and cohesion to respond to this report, but perhaps the Minister will tell us that he deals with that and everything is fine. However, I notice that according to the Government’s response it was the former Minister for Local Government, now the Minister for the Environment, who dealt with the issue. I want an assurance that the seniority and importance that was given to this matter will be carried forward in the new departmental arrangements.
Will the Minister say something about exactly what area he is responsible for? Is it England; England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland; or sometimes one and sometimes the other? What is his area of responsibility when it comes to tackling this issue? That does not in any way imply a criticism that the approach might be different in different places. A different policy approach in different parts of the United Kingdom is not a bad thing; in some respects it is a positively good thing. For instance, the Government’s response to the issue of the protection of Jewish property points out that the Scottish Executive have already set aside a fund of £1 million to deal with synagogues in Scotland. That is obviously a good thing and I would not want a United Kingdom-wide new initiative to blot that out. We should ensure that if there is good practice in one part of the United Kingdom, we borrow and import it into other parts of the UK.
My third question—if it is not in fact the fourth—is whether the Government intend actively to manage a programme or whether they simply plan to tick a few boxes. For instance, the Government response refers to the fact that the Commission on Integration and Cohesion will be producing a report. The timing of the writing of the Government’s response meant that it came before that report was produced. The commission has now reported and it would be good if the Minister could say what the implications of its report are on the programme that the Government intend to pursue.
I wish to say clearly that nothing justifies hate crimes, discrimination against individuals and their property, or discrimination against a whole religion or ethnic group. At the risk of being boring and repetitious, I wish to make the point that anti-Semitism is wrong. I make that point because a central matter of contention is whether the behaviour of a nation state—good or bad—can or should legitimise such behaviour or discrimination. I wish to say clearly that it does not. Discrimination is real and, in preparation for this debate, a briefing was provided to me by a senior Jewish member of the Liberal Democrats. I want to quote a couple of points that he put to me. He reminded me that the British Muslims who were convicted in the Crevice trial had a list of synagogues in their possession as a possible target. He went on to say that every
“Jewish community in the UK takes this threat so seriously that it is spending £3million, via the CST, to bomb-proof the windows of every Jewish building in the country.”
That is £3 million and I note that the Scottish Executive have allocated £1 million. It would be a powerful signal if the Minister said that the Government are prepared to allocate the other £2 million for the rest of the United Kingdom.
I do not want to make a partisan point, but it is important for us to recognise that political parties have a role that we are not yet fully playing. Another point put to me by a senior Jewish member of the Liberal Democrats was:
“Many of us experienced personal anti Semitism. In my last Parliamentary campaign the Labour team canvassed on behalf of ‘the Christian Gentleman' to show that I was not 'acceptable’... I lost by a very small margin”.
I emphasise that that is not a partisan point and I am well aware that it would be quite possible for people to intervene on me and draw my attention to Liberal Democrats who have behaved in an inappropriate way. The hon. Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann) was quite right and frank in what he said and I want to be quite right and frank in what I say. None of us can say that we are without fault in this; we all have work to do to improve our approach to this issue.
Mrs. Ellman: I accept with all seriousness the points that the hon. Gentleman is making. Is he aware that during the last general election in Rochdale, the then Member for Rochdale, Lorna Fitzsimons, reported that the Muslim Public Affairs Committee distributed a leaflet that claimed that she was Jewish, which she is not, as a reason for not voting for her? Does he think that there should have been a stronger dissociation of a political party from that leaflet put out during that campaign?
Andrew Stunell: I only became aware of that when I read the report. I of course share her concern about that.
I was making the point that the behaviour of a particular nation state cannot justify discriminatory action against individuals. There is also the inverse point that the robust criticism of the behaviour of a nation state should not be automatically interpreted as an attack on the integrity, the standing or the legitimacy of individuals. Let me give a simple example. I completely condemn the illegal invasion of Iraq, but that does not make me anti-British, except perhaps in the eyes of some right-wing commentators. That invasion does not legitimise terrorist actions against Britons, either at home or overseas. Similarly, I condemn the illegal occupation of Arab lands by Israeli settlers, but that does not make me anti-Semitic. It cannot be used to legitimise attacks on Jews in this country in any context.
That brings us to the disturbing issue of academic freedom. Robust polemic and a rigorous search for truth are at the heart of the academic and learning process, but so too must be the freedom to do that in an open and accepting climate without fear and with personal and mutual respect. It is clear that the UCU boycott, whether designed to be a boycott or designed to sound as though it is one, is utterly wrong. If it is a boycott, it is wrong, for all the reasons stated by my hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh (Chris Huhne) and others, and because it cuts across the whole ethos of the academic climate in this country that has developed over the years. It is wrong because it hits the wrong targets and quite clearly is discriminatory against one religious and ethnic group. I support the point that is in the report, and which my hon. Friend made, about how we will need race equality impact assessments if the boycott goes any further.
If, of course, it is just pretending to be a boycott—presumably so that it can gain credit with extremists without actually doing anything—a good analogy, and appropriate in the circumstances, would be Pontius Pilate. It is just washing its hands and trying to get the credit—a “Not me, guv!” sort of thing. If that is the case, it is absolutely scandalous. I do not think that there is any division in this House about that, and if the Minister can give us any pointers to action that the Government and Ministers in the relevant Department are prepared to take, it would be helpful. We should send a message in this debate to Universities UK saying that whatever its briefing says, and whatever might have happened so far, if from now on it will at least be fully engaged with this House, the Government and the all-party inquiry so that we can tackle things vigorously, that would be very encouraging indeed.
I would like to see more muscle in the Government’s responses. Okay, it is early days and there are good reasons why, at the moment, they are not as forthcoming as I would like, but please can the Minister tell us that he is absolutely determined to put in that muscle to ensure results? Will we see more signs of action from the Government and not simply good intentions? Will he assure us that there will be more cross-border work in all its meanings? England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are each producing different responses, which is not bad; I am not asking for a uniform response, but for an evaluation of the responses being made and the application of best practice wherever possible.
For instance, I noticed that the Government’s response records that Northern Ireland universities have a statutory duty to deal with religious and ethnic discrimination. Is that a route that ought to be looked at for English universities? Then there are border issues relating to our work with the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe and the European Union. Again, there are plenty of opportunities for co-ordination and learning, and maybe for the UK Government to export best practice else where.
I think that this has been a very valuable inquiry and the Government’s response is a good start, but there is much more work to be done, and I look forward to working with the Minister and, I hope, the official Opposition in tackling this and taking it forward.
4.34 pm
Mr. Paul Goodman (Wycombe) (Con): It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Sir John. Like the Minister, I have been translated from the great spaces of the Finance Bill into community cohesion. I have not yet had the chance to welcome him to his new position, which I now do. I suppose that this is my debut in this field.
I should like to pick up on a point made by the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Andrew Stunell). I think that we should all like to have some clarity about who ultimately is responsible in this area. Is it the Minister present or another refugee from the Finance Bill, the Minister for Local Government? I am sure that the Minister present will answer that question when he responds to this debate, which has been a very fine one. I congratulate the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann) on the way in which he introduced it and on
commissioning the report. I congratulate also the right hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. MacShane) on chairing the inquiry.
I have a number of particular interests: my background is Jewish, although it is not the religion that I try to practise. Furthermore, I have the largest percentage of Muslim constituents of any official Opposition MP. So there is never a dull moment. I think that I can say fairly, therefore, that I see several angles on the issues involved. The debate has been a model for other debates on the violation of human dignity, whether that violation is based on ethnicity or religion. I, certainly, would welcome similar debates on, for example, Islamophobia.
I want to make it clear that I agree with the hon. Member for Hazel Grove that this is an area for an all-party consensus, and I welcome much of the Government’s response, although, as all Ministers know, there is always more to do. I shall come to that point in a moment. I think that the hon. Member for Bassetlaw was absolutely right to intimate that all racism is evil. There is a particular horror of anti-Semitism for people with roots in western Europe as a result of the holocaust. I think that it has to be acknowledged that the roots of anti-Semitism in western Europe lie partly in Christian replacement theology, from which, thankfully, the Roman Catholic Church and a number of others have now distanced themselves, since Vatican II.
Against the, in some cases, horrifying pictures painted this afternoon by hon. Members, particularly some of the alarming information given by the hon. Member for Worsley (Barbara Keeley), it is important to set what my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell) quoted the Chief Rabbi as saying when he gave evidence, which was that, by and large, Britain is not an anti-Semitic country. In general, and certainly compared with other countries, I believe that Britain has been a good home for Jews, as well as for people of many other ethnic backgrounds.
I am trying to respond to a few themes only and to draw them together in this way: I think that it has emerged from the debate that organised anti-Semitism, until relatively recently, has been monopolised by British neo-Nazis and elements of the indigenous left and right. Government Members were courageous to sign up in the report to the statement quoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry. We have heard evidence that contemporary anti-Semitism in Britain is found more commonly on the left than on the right. The hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs. Ellman) referred to the New Statesman cover, which was an alarming manifestation of that trend, although I should say in return that all parties have their own sinister corners. However, I admire the way in which members of the commission faced and signed up to that statement.
It has emerged also that that monopoly has been broken in recent years by separatist extremists who claim to act in the name of Islam. It is important, right at the start, to stress, as did the right hon. Member for Rotherham, that those separatists do not represent the Islamic mainstream, which in my constituency is represented by bodies such as the Wycombe Islamic Mission and Mosque Trust, and that there is much local co-operation on the ground up and down Britain between Jews and Muslims. I am nervous of citing examples from Manchester, because hon. Members present know more about it than I do, but the Community Security Trust has cited
in a brief the Muslim-Jewish forum in Greater Manchester. There are, of course, others.
At best, the separatists are opposed to terrorism in Britain, but they regard Jews, Christians and members of other religions and none as kufr, which is a derogatory term for non-Muslims and which in itself contrasts with the authentic Islamic view of both Jews and Christians as “people of the Book”. At worst, the separatists support terrorism in Britain, as we have seen from a procession of events, from the Dhiren Barot plot, which, significantly, took place before the invasion of Iraq, all the way through to the most recent attack on Glasgow airport.
It is vital to emphasise—the Liberal Democrat spokesman, the hon. Member for Hazel Grove, picked up this point very acutely—that synagogues and other Jewish targets in Britain are potential terrorist targets. There is a long list of such attacks abroad. The House will remember the bombing of the synagogue in Istanbul. It is significant, as the hon. Gentleman said, that the Crevice trial convicts were found with a list of synagogues in their possession.
Having established that what I described as a monopoly has been broken and having time to respond to only a few themes, I shall question the Minister about the Government’s response to the abuse of universities, which have come up a great deal in the debate, and prisons, which have not come up so much, as potential incubators of anti-Semitism by extremists.
Let me deal first with universities. The Minister will be aware of claims by Professor Anthony Glees of Brunel university that extremist groups or terror groups are active in up to 30 British universities. Some of those, by the way, are BNP or what are traditionally known as extreme-right groups. If he has read Ed Husain’s book “The Islamist”—he is being urged this afternoon by hon. Members on both sides of the Chamber to do so—he will be aware that it is the practice of extreme groups such as Hizb ut-Tahrir, of which Ed Husain was a member, to operate in that way, and that at least one member of a university Islamic society has been charged with terrorist offences.
Does the Minister agree with Trevor Phillips that the response of vice-chancellors to anti-Semitic activity has been “patchy”—my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry referred to that—and will he commend universities such as Birmingham, which the report identified, that have very strong safeguards in place in relation to visiting speakers? What practical steps are the Government taking to ensure that a working group comprising Universities UK and a committee of vice-chancellors is set up on the issue? The hon. Member for Bassetlaw made it pretty clear that there has been an element of institutional resistance and that that perhaps continues.
On the vexed question of the proposed so-called boycott, will the Minister pick up the point made by the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Chris Huhne) about the Government encouraging the University and College Union to conduct a race equality impact assessment on any boycott policy?
I asked the Secretary of State for Education and Skills a while ago, before I was moved to my current duties, how many faculties, chairs and other facilities in
relation to Islamic studies in universities were funded from abroad. Obviously, we have no objection in principle to funding coming to universities from abroad. However, we are concerned about funding from separatists whose mode of thought is, among other things, anti-Semitic. I received the following answer:
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |