Andrew Stunell welcomes all-parliamentary inquiry into anti-Semitism but calls for more government action on the issue

[This article is based on a speech made by Andrew Stunell in Westminster Hall. The debate was based on the report of the all-party parliamentary inquiry into Anti-Semitism, and the government response thereto.]

It is a privilege to be able to speak in this debate on behalf of the Liberal Democrats. I believe that I am the first speaker in the debate who does not have either of the two qualifications that other speakers have had. I did not serve on the commission nor do I have a Jewish background. For that matter, neither do I have a significant Jewish community in my constituency. Perhaps I can look on the subject of the debate and the debate so far from slightly outside the perspective of some of those who have spoken.

The all-party group’s inquiry is a moving piece of work. It is thorough and measured, and, for me, it was revelatory in many ways. I hope that it serves to be revelatory in so far as policy making goes, but not just government policy making. Several speakers made it clear that overcoming the problem that the inquiry brought out will require changes in other parts of civic society.

This is a unique occasion. I understand that it is the first time that an all-party group’s report has been the subject of a debate and an official response from the government.

I welcome the government’s response, which is a good first shot at a response, is very much a case of work in progress with far more to come. The report has sounded the alarm, but we all understand that there is far more to be done before we can say that we have responded properly to the alert that has been given.

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 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 be delivered 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 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.

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 has 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 is whether the government intend to actively 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 can or should legitimise such behaviour or discrimination. I wish to say clearly that it does not.

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. 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.

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.

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. It is wrong because it hits the wrong targets and quite clearly is discriminatory against one religious and ethnic group.

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. 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. Will we see more signs of action from the government and not simply good intentions? Will there 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.

This article is based on a speech by Andrew Stunell in Westminster Hall on 19th July 2007.

Andrew Stunell is Liberal Democrat Shadow Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government

Please click here to watch Andrew Stunell’s speech on parliament live TV
(Note the video will only be available 28 days after the speech)