Extract from Business
questions
(Birmingham, Hodge Hill) (Lab):
Will the Leader of the House advise me on how we can bring
Ministers to the House to account for their decisions on arms
export licences? As she knows, the Select Committee on Business
and Trade assumed responsibility for the oversight of arms export
licences in January. At the beginning of April, an important
legal judgment was issued by the International Court of Justice.
We therefore held our first hearing on licensing arms exports to
Israel yesterday. We
gave Ministers 20 days' notice to attend, together with detailed
questions in correspondence. I am grateful to the Deputy Foreign
Secretary for his apology to me yesterday for the Foreign Office
not fielding a Minister. I have had no such correspondence or
contact from the Department for Business and Trade.
This is not acceptable. Ministers are politically accountable to
Parliament. This is a matter of extreme interest to the House,
and it is part of Ministers' legal responsibility that they are
politically accountable. Will the right hon. Lady advise me on
what steps she can take next week to ensure that a Minister
answers for the judgments the Government have made?
: I know that the right hon.
Gentleman takes those new responsibilities very seriously. As he
knows, both Departments have made it clear that they are
perfectly happy to attend and be scrutinised in respect of those
decisions and to answer questions on the Government's position.
Twenty days' notice sounds like a long time, but he will
understand that the Ministers in question may have travel
obligations and might therefore have been unable to make the
specific date. I know that he knew last Friday that they would
not be able to attend the session that took place yesterday. I
also know that the Deputy Foreign Secretary spoke to him and, I
hope, reassured the right hon. Gentleman of his intention to
field a Minister for his Committee. Even though I am not telling
the right hon. Gentleman anything he does not already know, I
hope that reassures him that Ministers do intend to attend. I am
very sure that no stunts such as those that took place yesterday
will be required to get them to do so.
Oral answer (Lords)
on Jewish Community in London: Safety
Asked by
To ask His Majesty's Government what further measures they plan
to take to enhance the safety of London's Jewish community.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office () (Con)
My Lords, the Government are steadfast in their commitment to
protecting our Jewish communities, which is why we have committed
further funding of £72 million for the Jewish community
protective security grant to continue the vital work done in
protecting Jewish communities until 2028. The JCPS grant is
managed by the Community Security Trust, which I had the
privilege of visiting a couple of weeks ago and which provides
protective security measures at Jewish schools, colleges,
nurseries and some other Jewish community sites, as well as a
number of synagogues.
(Con)
My Lords, does the Minister agree that the police have a very
challenging task to allow peaceful marches, to protect the rights
of local people who are observing the march and to arrest those
who are blatantly breaking the law—and that they normally they
get this right? I ask the Minister to reflect on the Gideon
Falter case and just to further reflect on whether, if the person
in question had been a hijab-wearing Muslim woman observing a
pro-Israeli march, or, for that matter, a Catholic priest, they
would have been accused of provocation and threatened with
arrest? I suggest that, if that had happened, there would have
been massive outrage and the police officers in question would
have been dismissed. So all we are really asking for is that
everyone should be treated fairly and equally.
(Con)
I agree with my noble friend that the police have a hugely
difficult job, but obviously a police officer telling a person
that being openly Jewish is provocative is clearly very wrong. I
will not speculate as to what might have happened in the case of
other individuals. We should welcome the Met Police's apology.
The Prime Minister recently made it clear to police forces that
it is the public's expectation that they will not merely manage
protests but police them and, of course, do so proportionately.
My right honourable friend the Home Secretary met with Sir Mark
Rowley and the Assistant Commissioner Matt Twist earlier this
week, and put it very well:
“Jewish people will always have the right to be able to go about
their daily lives safely and freely, in London and across the
UK”.
The Home Secretary continued:
“Sir Mark has reassured me he will make this clear to all
sections of the community as a matter of urgency. The Met's focus
now is rightly on reassurance, learning from what happened, and
ensuring that Jewish people are safe and feel safe in
London”.
I think we should all support it in that critical endeavour.
(CB)
My Lords, does the Minister agree that it would enhance the image
and security of the wonderful Jewish people if the Jewish people
in this country were to issue a strong statement dissociating
themselves from the policies of the Netanyahu Government and the
atrocities that have been committed on the people of Gaza, who
are also human? Instead of that, the Board of Deputies has
unfortunately sent a delegation to Tel Aviv showing solidarity
with the Netanyahu Government, whose atrocities include the
destroying of hospitals and the firing on aid convoys, killing
even British people.
(Con)
I think that is a deeply inappropriate question and I will not
stoop so low as to answer it.
(Lab)
Perhaps I can. British Jews are no more responsible for the
actions of the State of Israel than I am.
To return to the question, it is clear that this incident was
deeply regrettable; that language about being “openly Jewish” was
wrong and I am glad that the Met Police has apologised for it and
will take the opportunity to reflect and ensure that all
Londoners can have confidence in it and everyone can feel safe in
their city. I will not try to second-guess policing decisions and
I would not expect the Minister to do so, but I am sure that
discussions are ongoing around these issues in government. I
noticed that this Question was originally down to be answered by
the Minister for Faith. Can the Minister tell the House whether
the Minister for Faith is being drawn into these discussions so
they are not simply seen as a policing or security matter?
(Con)
My Lords, we have to consider all the various aspects of policing
in the round. The noble Baroness is quite right; public order
policing is very complex and obviously very challenging, but it
remains incumbent on Sir Mark and of course the mayor as well to
ensure that London remains a safe and welcoming city. As I said
in an earlier answer, I believe that the force's focus ought to
be on proportionate policing, making sure that it is done
properly and fairly, and obviously we will continue to back
forces in that, using all aspects of government.
(Non-Afl)
My Lords, just to follow up on the noble Baroness's point about
drawing in other issues, not just leaving it to policing, the
question is about enhancing the safety of our Jewish community.
What more can we do to enhance it? Once it gets to policing, we
know that it is in a bad place. How can we stop it getting to
that point and enhance the safety of our Jewish communities right
across the United Kingdom?
(Con)
I think I answered that in my initial remarks, in which I
mentioned the funding that has been increased for the Community
Security Trust to administer in the JCPS. Just to go back to the
Community Security Trust—I declare an interest as I was at the
dinner where the Prime Minister announced the additional funding
and I donated some money to it—the fact is that it has an
enormous network, which I know is incredibly sophisticated,
having seen it in operation, the police work incredibly closely
with it, and it does a fantastic job. I very much praise it for
all the work that it does.
(LD)
My Lords, from a slightly different angle, the additional funding
from the Government mentioned by the Minister is extremely
welcome, but it is not assuaging the additional insecurity felt
by the Jewish community after 7 October. A recent survey found
that 50% of British Jews are currently considering leaving the
United Kingdom. This would spell disaster for Britain, which
desperately needs their talent and creativity and the diversity
that they bring to British life. We as politicians have an
important role to play here, and we must be extremely careful
about what we say and do, which could inflame tensions and
increase divisions that are growing and are already way too
wide.
(Con)
My Lords, I agree with the noble Baroness's statement.
(Con)
My Lords, I am very grateful to the Government for their
commitment to protect the Jewish community, and I ask my noble
friend whether he will join me in paying tribute, as I am sure he
will, to the CST, which is trying to keep Jews safe. I declare my
interest as a British Jew and to my other interests in the
register. While there are weekly marches calling for “globalising
the intifada” and eradication of the only Jewish state, when Jews
are pelted with bricks and beaten with bars, and children are
threatened on the way to school and university students
threatened on campus, I feel that it would be most appreciated if
the Government would look carefully at banning more of
organisations such as Palestine Action, which has come to light,
and other groups which seem to want to target the Jewish
community directly, when we have no responsibility for the
actions of an overseas Government.
(Con)
My noble friend makes some good points. Of course, as has been
often stated from the Dispatch Box, the Government do not comment
on ongoing matters of possible proscription. The police can of
course impose conditions on protests where they believe the
protest may result in a variety of civil offences, serious
disorder, damage to property and so on and so forth, but the
ability to actually ban protests is a complex one under the
Public Order Act. Of course, I agree with my noble friend, but it
is incumbent on all citizens to reassure the Jews, who are
feeling so under pressure.
(Non-Afl)
My Lords, I am sure that noble Lords have been following the
events at Columbia University and the encampment there, where
there have been some pretty horrific scenes of students screaming
rather maniacally to exclude “genocidal Zios”, and using other
very offensive and anti-Semitic slogans, and so on. It has just
completely got out of hand. The global student movement is coming
to the UK: “From Gaza to Columbia to London” is the slogan, and
it starts at UCL at 1 pm on Friday 26 April. I am not saying that
as an advert, and I am not particularly worried about people
protesting or about their interpretive dance against colonisation
that they are bringing over. However, I am worried about
anti-Semitism on London and other British campuses. Safety is not
just a policing question. Can the Minister assure us that guard
is being taken against what is happening on campuses, where the
levels of anti-Semitism are now routine and normalised?
(Con)
My noble friend from the Department for Education assures me that
there is protection on British campuses. However, I also
acknowledge the points that the noble Baroness made and share her
concerns; these trends are very disturbing.
(Lab)
My Lords, can the Minister comment on the take-up of grants for
the protection of religious premises from attacks? Is he aware of
some of the concerns that the processes that his department
requires from faith communities are extremely complicated for
often quite small sums of money?
(Con)
I am afraid that I do not have any statistics to hand on that.
But, again, the money that we were talking about making available
in my initial Answer is administered by the Community Security
Trust; there is no application process to access that pool of
funds.
