| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
19 July 2007 : Column 173WH—continued
The hon. Member for Wycombe congratulated me on my coming to the Treasury Bench, so may I congratulate him on his move? He made some excellent points. I was particularly struck by the one about extremism in prisons. Given the nature of the prison system, community engagement is limited mainly to the resettlement of
prisoners. Work is ongoing in the Prison Service and the National Offender Management Service to provide assistance to prisoners during their time in prison and in order to rehabilitate them into their community.
I particularly want to draw the attention of hon. Members to the extremist prisoners working group. Peter Atherton, deputy director-general of the Prison Service, has chaired a series of seminars to consider the strategic policy and operational issues surrounding radicalisation and extremism in the specific context of prisons. A report setting out the current working practices, issues to be resolved and an implementation and action plan is being produced, and it is anticipated that it will be published at the end of October. That directly answers the hon. Gentleman’s point and I hope that he can take reassurance from that.
One of today’s other themes has been an almost universal concern about the rise of anti-Semitism, both in this country and across Europe. That concern is shared by the Government. It is unfortunately well founded, given the fact that the CST recorded 594 anti-Semitic incidents in 2006—that is the highest annual total since the CST began recording in 1984. Of those incidents, 112 were violent anti-Semitic assaults, four of which were potentially life-threatening. There were 70 incidents of damage and desecration to Jewish property, which included nine desecrations of Jewish cemeteries. Of major concern is the fact that Jewish schools or schoolchildren were targeted in 59 incidents, so I fully take on board the point made eloquently by my hon. Friend the Member for Worsley. In 25 cases, the incidents took place against Jewish schoolchildren on their journey to or from school. So we are not necessarily talking about incidents on school estates themselves, and that also might need to be examined.
In the light of all this, it is important that we recognise that anti-Semitism has not been taken as seriously as other forms of hatred in some parts of our society. That is simply not acceptable and it is right that we take concerted steps to deal with the situation. Whether anti-Semitism comes from the far left, the far right or from so-called Islamist extremists, it must be understood for what it is and condemned. It should be dealt with promptly and effectively through the law. We must do everything that we can to prevent anti-Semitism occurring.
Britain has a strong legislative framework to protect people from harassment and hate, and I should like to mention some of the legal safeguards at length later in my contribution. We cannot be complacent and allow things to happen. We need to have a zero-tolerance approach and ensure that the powers on the statute book are complied with and enforced. I hope that everyone will take away that important point.
I reiterate the Government’s commitment to tackling all forms of hate crime and racial intolerance, including anti-Semitism, wherever it exists. We have one of the world’s strongest legal frameworks for protecting people from discrimination and persecution on the basis of race or faith, and that has been significantly tightened in recent years. It is also important to note that the UK leads the way on the recording and monitoring of racist crime, including anti-Semitism. The UK's excellent example has been acknowledged in successive reports by the European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia, now the Fundamental Rights Agency. As hon. Members have said, we recall more than seems to be the case, and
it looks as if we are a more racist or anti-Semitic country than we are, but we are taking the matter seriously. I hope that other countries will follow.
I am pleased to see wider progress away from the focus on criminal acts. The report noted concern about the tone of the general discourse, for example. Open and public debate is one thing, but rhetoric with an undercurrent of hate and racism is quite another. We need practical ways to tackle that rhetoric. That is why I remain concerned about recent calls in academia to boycott contact with academics working in Israel. Such boycotts threaten academic freedom and intellectual exchange, and cannot be acceptable.
Lecturers in the new university and college lecturers’ union should be given every support to combat selective boycotts that are anti-Jewish in principle. I urge the new union's executive and leadership to oppose the boycott. Alongside that, I urge them to take seriously the problems being experienced by Jewish students on some university campuses. That has been articulated very well today. I know that Universities UK is involved in that debate, and I urge it to go further. Universities should be centres for constructive dialogue and exchange of views that lead to better understanding of issues, and of people and their backgrounds. No one is disputing the right to criticise, or to criticise Israel, but a place where differences and diversity are welcomed and valued for adding new dimensions to the dialogue, and new ideas developed in partnership at the expense of hate, should be the norm rather than the exception.
Mrs. Ellman: Is the Minister aware that boycott campaigns and boycott resolutions have been passed by Unison and the Transport and General Workers Union, which is part of the new Unite union? Does he see those acts, with the proposed academic boycott in colleges and universities, as yet another illustration of singling out Israel as evil above all other nations?
Mr. Wright: I was disappointed with the T and G call for a boycott. I am a member of the GMB, and trade unionism is based on fairness, equality and a free exchange of ideas, so it is astonishing that a trade union can condemn a country in that way. I share my hon. Friend’s concern.
Returning to the boycott in academia, it is not acceptable for Jewish students to be attacked in that way, either verbally or physically. It is not acceptable for people to incite the sort of behaviour among students that was so eloquently described by my right hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham.
During the debate in the other place reference was made to the strong legislative framework on race crime. Britain has in place one of the strongest legislative frameworks to protect people from harassment and abuse, and specifically racial or religious persecution. That legislation protects Jewish people alongside other racial and ethnic groups. The Race Relations Act 1976 imposes on public authorities, including higher education institutions, a positive duty to eliminate unlawful racial discrimination, and to promote race equality and relations between different racial groups.
Mr. Boswell:
Will the Minister pay particular attention to concern in the university sector as to whether that
public duty binds a university’s management, vice-chancellor and court, and whether it is applicable to the student union? I am a little sensitive about the matter, because I introduced the legislation some time ago. Will the Minister undertake at least to look at that point in detail, and to explore it with the universities?
Mr. Wright: The hon. Gentleman makes an excellent point. I am not at liberty to give a definitive answer, but I can pledge to look at the matter.
There are other examples on the statute book of strong protection against harassment, so additional legislative powers are not necessary to cover higher education institutions and so on, but it is important that existing provisions are enforced and complied with.
John Mann: The Minister has provided a strong explanation of the law. Will he ensure that the cross-departmental taskforce has at the top of the agenda for its next meeting an analysis of why there have been so few prosecutions in view of the law’s strength, and consideration of the role of the Crown Prosecution Service and others in bringing forward prosecutions?
Mr. Wright: I have asked the cross-departmental hate crime taskforce to take the matter up as a matter of urgency, and it will consider ways forward. I hope that that reassures my hon. Friend. I have taken the matter on board personally, because compliance and enforcement are crucial.
Hon. Members referred to the internet, but not as much as I thought they would. Today's students are very much the internet generation, and they have access to reams of information, some of which helps them with their studies, but some of which exposes them to dangerous views and campaigns. That applies not just to students. The internet is open to the wider population, including children, which is a particular concern to me. Anti-Semitism on the net is a hate crime, and when a UK internet service provider is told that it is hosting offensive or anti-Semitic material, we should recognise and applaud the fact that it has a good record in removing it promptly. The police also have specific powers to deal with terrorist-related material. However, I believe we could do better in ensuring that service providers and the police find out about all such material more quickly.
With that in mind, the Association of Chief Police Officers has agreed to improve its advice on what to do when an internet hate crime is spotted. Recognising that many internet sites are not hosted in this country, Foreign Office Ministers have raised the matter with Governments of other countries, including in the middle east. I hope that that reassures my right hon. Friend the for Rotherham who made the point so eloquently. Foreign Office Ministers have obtained agreement among the G8 countries to co-operate further on that.
We should be clear that our policy in this country is robustly to tackle hate crime in whatever form or media it appears. Alongside that, we aim to build community cohesion so that communities draw strength from their diversity and celebrate what they all share, rather than remaining divided by difference. Tackling prejudice is an important part of building cohesive communities so
that people from all backgrounds develop their shared future, find common solutions to shared problems, and live and work together.
I believe the Chief Rabbi suggested that people should be bilingual, with a common language of citizenship and a second language connecting us to family and group traditions. Faith groups, including the Jewish community, have a crucial role to play in making the links and the bridges, and developing that common language.
Mr. Goodman: I intervened simply because the Minister seems to be drawing to the end of his peroration, and naturally has not had time to answer all the questions that have been raised. Will he assure us that he will write in reply to any unanswered questions, such as mine about the funding of university faculties from abroad?
Mr. Wright: Certainly I can give that pledge, but I hope that it will not disappoint the hon. Gentleman to hear that I do not intend to wrap up yet. I shall be on my feet for some time, and I apologise to hon. Members.
Informing the inquiry's report was the vast and varied contribution that the Jewish community makes, has made and will continue to make to this country. Socially, economically and culturally it has enriched British society as a whole, but it is one of a number of faith communities that can bring people together at local level, opening channels of dialogue and creating shared projects that give people of all faiths a shared stake in their community. We are helping many of those organisations to play a full role in developing cohesion through the faith communities capacity building fund, which is administered by my Department. Through this, we have supported a group of British imams and rabbis that have been meeting for the past three years. A result of those meetings and identifying joint priorities was the first national Muslim-Jewish women's conference, which was held in March.
The hon. Member for Hazel Grove mentioned the devolved Administrations. They are also doing a great deal. Many of the projects are similar to the initiatives about which I have already spoken, and they have been taken forward in particularly Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish ways by the devolved Administrations. The Government’s response to the group’s report says:
“Scottish Ministers have supported a separate annual Scottish Holocaust Memorial Day. Since 2001 so that communities could mobilise around an event for Scotland. Scotland also hosted the main UK event in 2003 in Edinburgh in partnership with the Home Office and Edinburgh City Council...The Welsh Assembly Government is fully committed to eradicating all forms of racial and religious discrimination and to promoting community cohesion. The government works with all faith groups through various forums including its Faith Communities Forum, chaired by the First Minister.”
Andrew Stunell: I am grateful to the Minister for drawing our attention to the Government’s response. Will he assure us that the best practice from each nation will be taken into account and propagated elsewhere? When a Minister is appointed to that decisive role about which he has spoken, will that person take personal responsibility both for informing themselves about the initiatives and for ensuring that that good practice is circulated?
Mr. Wright: Yes, I will certainly take that forward and ensure that best practice is disseminated through the taskforce and through other means.
On my final lap I shall turn to education, because Members have said that education is the key to changing cultures and attitudes. There is a generational issue. My grandparents grew up during and fought in the second world war, and they feel revulsion and horror towards anti-Semitism, largely as a result of learning about the final solution and the holocaust. My generation does not tend to have that feeling, and certainly the generations coming forward now do not seem to have that direct connection with the horrors of anti-Semitism. It is therefore important that the holocaust and other matters relating to anti-Semitism, such as the rise of the Nazis in the 1930s, are taught in schools. The Blackburn school linking project, which brought together 14-year-old girls from schools in the Wirral, Preston and Blackburn, shows how successful such activity can be. Despite coming from very different backgrounds, the girls quickly discovered that they had a great deal in common, so new guidance will encourage linking as a way forward.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families is also working with faith schools, which are another core part of the local cohesion picture. Indeed, the Jewish school in Birmingham, which has been mentioned in the debate, is an excellent example of promoting integration and cohesion, catering as it does for Jewish and Muslim children. However, there should also be a focus on the core curriculum to ensure that it provides opportunities to challenge racism, to understand the positive sides of migration and to value diversity. That is why I am delighted that the Government have made a £1.5 million grant to the Holocaust Educational Trust. I pay tribute in the strongest possible terms to the trust and to its work enabling children and sixth-form pupils to visit Auschwitz. It has been mentioned in the debate that enabling two students from every sixth form to visit Auschwitz is not enough. I fully accept that point, and I hope that we can move forward in ensuring that even more people can experience at first hand the horrors of the concentration camps and the final solution. That will help spread awareness of the lessons from the holocaust, and ensure that its language is respected by new generations.
There is a statutory requirement to teach about the holocaust, and the Department for Children, Schools and Families has supported holocaust memorial day in schools through the production of free educational resources to support its issues and themes. My Department’s £18 million “Connecting Community Plus” grant scheme is already supporting many projects that tackle racism more widely. With fair and objective media reporting, those practical projects have a real chance to make a difference in local communities throughout the country.
I shall end—perhaps where I should have begun—with the report’s first recommendation, which is about the definition of anti-Semitism. The inquiry was attracted to the European monitoring centre on racism and xenophobia—EUMC—draft definition. The Government have undertaken to re-examine that definition, if and when the EUMC’s successor body, the Fundamental Rights Agency, does so. The hon. Member for Hazel Grove noted that the Government use the broader definition of a racist incident, which came from the Stephen Lawrence inquiry. It is based on the victim’s perception, and we continue to regard it as a wide and
powerful definition that shows society’s abhorrence of such crimes, whether the victims are Jewish or from any other community. The fact that we have had the chance to publicise that message clearly and succinctly in the report reiterates how important the inquiry’s findings and recommendations have been. We are therefore committed to taking the work of the inquiry forward, and we have established a cross-Government working group, which includes Jewish stakeholders, to ensure that our response is actioned throughout Departments.
In conclusion, I pay tribute to the inquiry’s work. Moving it forward, I pledge that the Government will take it seriously and co-ordinate it properly, and I hope that we can have a similar debate sometime in the future.
John Mann: Before the Minister sits down, is he saying that when the Government respond to that progress in March 2008, there will be an opportunity to debate in the House that progress report?
Mr. Wright: That is not for me to say; it is for the business managers of the House. However, I would certainly encourage it so that we can be accountable for the progress that has been made on such an important issue as tackling anti-Semitism.
Adjourned accordingly at twenty-six minutes past Five o’clock.
| Index | Home Page |