Labour criticise Panorama for “deliberate and malicious misrepresentations designed to mislead the public”
|
On the programme’s misrepresentations, a spokesperson for the
Labour Party said: “The Panorama programme and the BBC have
engaged in deliberate and malicious representations designed to
mislead the public. “We completely reject any claim that the
Labour Party is antisemitic. The Labour Party at all levels is
implacably opposed to antisemitism and is determined to root out
this social cancer from our movement and society.
“Labour...Request free trial
On the programme’s misrepresentations, a spokesperson for the Labour Party said:
“The Panorama programme and the BBC have engaged in deliberate and malicious representations designed to mislead the public.
“We completely reject any claim that the Labour Party is antisemitic. The Labour Party at all levels is implacably opposed to antisemitism and is determined to root out this social cancer from our movement and society.
“Labour stands in solidarity with Jewish people and is fully committed to the support, defence and celebration of the Jewish community and its organisations.
“Labour is taking decisive action against antisemitism, doubling the number of staff dedicated to dealing with complaints and cases. And since Jennie Formby became General Secretary, the rate at which antisemitism cases have been dealt with has increased more than four-fold.
“Our records show that antisemitism cases that have gone through the stages of our disciplinary procedures since September 2015 account for about 0.06% of the Party’s membership. This represents a tiny minority, but one antisemite is one too many, and we will continue to act against this repugnant form of racism.
“In both its choice of presenter and lines of inquiry, it appears that Panorama has pre-determined the outcome of its investigation and is relying on unsubstantiated allegations and misrepresentation to come to its conclusions.
“No proper attempt has been made by Panorama to understand Labour’s current processes and procedures for dealing with complaints about antisemitism, which is clearly essential to reach a fair and balanced judgement about an important issue in the public interest.”
Ends
On interviews from former Labour staffers:
A Labour Party spokesperson said:
“It appears these disaffected former officials include those who have always opposed Jeremy Corbyn’s leadership, worked to actively undermine it, and have both personal and political axes to grind. This throws into doubt their credibility as sources.
“Our records show that after these officials left and after Jennie Formby became General Secretary, the rate at which antisemitism cases have been dealt with, increased more than four-fold.”
On background:
One of these disaffected ex-staffers who has unlawfully leaked emails to the press left his employment with the Labour Party shortly after a formal grievance was raised against him by another employee. Other individuals are well known for their political opposition to Jeremy Corbyn’s leadership and have a clear political motive for seeking to undermine him.
We have asked Panorama if they questioned them on their clear agenda and on their political affiliations with factional groups within the party. We have not received a response.
These ex-officials from the Governance and Legal Unit had no legal background or qualifications and had misapplied the Party’s rules on numerous occasions for political reasons. For example, the wrongful suspension and auto-exclusion of thousands of members during the 2015 and 2016 leadership campaigns. This included members being suspended for having retweeted the Green party or in one case, praising the Foo Fighters on Facebook.
The sheer number of individuals suspended and auto-excluded fuelled suspicions throughout the Party that the disciplinary process under those officials was being manipulated for political reasons, not least in an attempt to improperly influence the outcome of those elections. It was this conduct during the 2015 leadership election that led to a number of Shami Chakrabarti’s findings and her recommendations for reform. Moreover, the legacy of the process adopted during those two elections was a backlog of pending disciplinary investigations. As the officials responsible must have realised, this vastly outstripped the capacity of the Governance and Legal Unit for handling them, resulting in the backlog which Jennie Formby inherited (at which point, Panorama will note, those responsible left their employment). It is for these reasons that Jennie Formby has been determined to implement reforms to professionalise, de-politicise and speed up the processes.
Around half of the complaints about antisemitism that the Party was dealing with in spring 2016 were from before Jeremy Corbyn became leader of the Party, as was stated at the time.
Surveys conducted jointly by the Campaign Against Antisemitism and You Gov in 2015 and 2017 demonstrate that antisemitic attitudes are higher among Conservative voters than Labour voters. The surveys also show that antisemitic attitudes among Labour supporters have decreased over the course of these two years while Jeremy was leader, not increased.
On Mike Creighton’s claims regarding a conversation with Seumas Milne for advice in spring 2016:
A Labour Party spokesperson said:
“This allegation is false and malicious and our response has been misrepresented by Panorama, throwing into doubt the extent and seriousness of their engagement with the Labour party’s responses. Jeremy Corbyn has repeatedly expressed his support for Israel’s right to exist and for a two state solution, with a secure Israel alongside a secure and viable Palestinian state, so there would be no reason whatever to laugh at any such suggestion. This claim is absurd and untrue.”
On background:
Jeremy Corbyn had already made clear he supports Israel’s right to exist. For example, he said “I recognise and support the right of the state of Israel to exist.” https://jewishnews.timesofisrael.com/jeremy-corbyn-praises-israel-at-jewish-news-debate/
Labour’s policy, as set out in our 2017 manifesto, is to support a two state solution, with a secure Israel alongside a secure and viable Palestinian state. Jeremy Corbyn supports this policy and has repeatedly spoken about it. For example https://twitter.com/jeremycorbyn/status/1011329983380426752
The only significant discussion that Seumas Milne and Mike Creighton had was one in which Mike Creighton said that political discretion at that time guided decision-making in the Governance and Legal Unit, rather than objective tests and criteria. At the time the Governance and Legal Unit was run by the now disaffected former officials who Panorama is relying on as sources for this programme.
On allegations of interference:
On this claim: In an email on 10 March 2018, Jeremy Corbyn’s Director of Communications, Seumas Milne said there should be a review of the disciplinary process into anti-Semitic complaints: “something's going wrong, and we're muddling up political disputes with racism... I think going forward we need to review where and how we’re drawing the line.” The then Head of Disputes, Sam Matthews, interpreted that email as “the Leader’s Office requesting to be involved directly in the disciplinary process. This is not a helpful suggestion, it is an instruction.”
A Labour Party spokesperson said:
“This is a malicious, selective briefing from disaffected, politically hostile former employees, which was already briefed to the press several months ago. Through selective quotation to change the meaning, Panorama has deliberately misrepresented this correspondence.
“The full sentence reads, “But if we're more than very occasionally using disciplinary action against Jewish members for anti-Semitism, something's going wrong, and we're muddling up political disputes with racism.”
“The Leader’s Office did not intervene. The email from a former employee explicitly asks for a “view”, which was complied with in good faith during a short period between the former general secretary leaving and the new general secretary taking over.
“The email written by Seumas Milne expresses a view, as requested by former staff, that caution be exercised when taking action against Jewish people over antisemitism. That was the main point of the email, and for the Panorama press release to omit that key issue, is seriously to misrepresent what was said and took place.
“Having identified the subject of the complaint as a “Jewish activist, the son of Holocaust survivor”, the email states: “if we’re more than very occasionally using disciplinary action against Jewish members for anti-Semitism, something’s going wrong and we’re muddling up political disputes with racism”.
“In a separate email, one of these disaffected former employees says “there isn’t a strong case” against the Jewish individual.
“The ultimate decision on individual cases always rested with the staff who worked on disciplinary matters. Since becoming General Secretary, Jennie Formby has ended this practice and made the procedures for dealing with complaints about antisemitism more robust.”
Ends
On background, to be reported as it is understood:
We can’t comment on individuals on the record as procedures are confidential and we must uphold our responsibilities under data protection legislation.
This email from March 2018, relating to a Jewish individual, was briefed to the press and published several months ago.
The full email reads:
“I think to suspend this guy for anti-Semitism is really problematic. None of the posts can be identified as anti-Semitic in the terms of the definition we have adopted as a party or the guidance in the Chakrabarti report. “Several of them quite clearly relate to political arguments within the Jewish community, between Jewish Labour activists and between Jewish Zionists and Jewish anti-Zionists. That includes the heckling of the JLM speaker (obviously the issue of heckling is another matter, but separate from anti-semitism). “Add to that that this member is a Jewish activist, the son of a Holocaust survivor, a leading member of Jewish Voices for Labour and long-term Middle East rights activist - and it's pretty clear that we're misidentifying political arguments for anti-Semitism. Of course there are a very small number of Jewish people who can adopt anti-semitic attitudes/language - just as there are a very small number of black people who use anti-black racist tropes - and that should be called out. “But if we're more than very occasionally using disciplinary action against Jewish members for anti-Semitism, something's going wrong, and we're muddling up political disputes with racism. “Quite apart from this specific case, I think going forward we need to review where and how we're drawing the line if we're going to have clear and defensible processes.”
When a disaffected former staff leaked this email, they left out an email in which Sam Matthews said “I don't think it's a particularly strong case” in relation to the individual, admitting that there was not strong evidence to warrant suspension.
It is clear from the email that Seumas Milne is specifically asked for his “view”. He does not email former employees to ask about this case or to insert himself into the discussions. He was contacted by (now) former employees asking for his view and he complied in good faith.
He questioned the rationale behind suspension but did not argue against the individual being investigated. Members are only suspended pending investigation where there are clear and sufficient grounds for doing so. Otherwise, they are placed under investigation but not suspended. He highlighted the fact that the individual is Jewish and suggested that it could be suggested particular caution with the Party taking action against Jewish people over antisemitism.
The emails make clear this was a view and that the ultimate decision rested with the staff in the disciplinary unit who took decisions on complaints.
The email chain was specifically about the Palestine Live dossier. The Palestine Live dossier does not allege that this individual posted anything antisemitic or otherwise offensive in the group.
It is therefore entirely unclear why this individual, a Jewish peace activist, who had not been accused in the dossier of posting anything antisemitic, was seen as the priority by these disaffected former officials over dealing with disgusting and clear cut cases of antisemitism in the group.
One of the posts (on his personal account, not in the Palestine Live group) on the basis of which former employees were asking for views on this individual was a post which summarises the position being articulated by the Israeli Justice Minister - that “it’s antisemitic to ever criticise Israel”. As a Jewish person he criticised this homogenisation of the Jewish people and the conflation between any criticism of Israel and antisemitism.
The email from Seumas Milne - after he is asked to express his view - sets out his view that the posts do not appear to fall foul of the IHRA definition of antisemitism or the guidance in the Chakrabarti report, and suggests we act with particular caution in taking action against Jewish people over antisemitism, as we would in relation to a black person over anti-black racism. He questioned the rationale behind suspension but did not argue against the individual being investigated.
Sam Matthews said in one of the emails in this chain that “I don't think it's a particularly strong case” in relation to the individual, admitting that there was not strong evidence to warrant suspension.
The context for this email is that during a short transition period of a few weeks, after Iain McNicol stepped down as General Secretary and before Jennie Formby started, former, now disaffected officials requested support from some Party staff in the Leader's Office to help with a backlog in cases. These former officials sought the views of staff in the Leader’s Office on a handful of cases during this short period of time, and this was complied with in good faith. Former officials made this request of their own volition, it was not requested.
One possible explanation for these requests - which immediately preceded the employees in question leaving their posts - was that they were made precisely in order to generate material giving rise to the misleading impression that the staff to whom the requests were made were “intervening” or “interfering” in disciplinary cases. Has Panorama put that to the individuals concerned? What is their explanation for making these requests, given that they now affect to say that it was improper for the staff to whom they made the requests to be involved in the process?
Only the staff who work on disciplinary cases have the authority to make those decisions, and in most cases there was a consensus view. When Jennie Formby started she requested that staff no longer seek this support and she has doubled the size of the staff team handling disciplinary cases to ensure they have greater capacity.
Response to specific allegations:
On allegations of interference in the NCC
A Labour Party spokesperson said:
“These emails show the opposite of what Panorama is alleging. There was absolutely no attempt to interfere in the NCC.
“The emails make clear that the NCC is independent. They are about ensuring the NCC is held accountable for the length of time they take to hear cases and about protecting the Party against any successful legal challenge on the basis of perceived bias.
“As the email says, former, now disaffected, staff members, deliberately delayed Jackie Walker’s case, and Jennie Formby insisted that it be heard quickly. It was after these staffers had stopped working for the Party, that Jackie Walker was expelled.
“Any allegation that there was any attempt to interfere with this case or support this individual is entirely untrue, as proven by the fact that the individual was expelled this year, while Jennie Formby was General Secretary, after these disaffected staffers had left.”
Ends
On background:
When Jennie Formby started as General Secretary, one of her first priorities was to speed up the procedures for antisemitism complaints and following improvements to procedures, the rate at which antisemitism cases are dealt with, has increased more than four-fold.
Jeremy Corbyn had publicly said that the processes were too slow and Jennie Formby had said that speeding them up was one of her first priorities. This email chain was about how to increase the speed with which the NCC hear cases, ensuring they are held accountable for the length of time they took to hear cases. Very properly, the emails don’t say anything about interfering with their decision-making.
As Jennie Formby says in her email, one of the former employees interviewed by the programme had told Jennie Formby that he and the other now ex-staff members had made a deliberate decision to delay Jackie Walker’s case for more than a year. Jennie Formby’s email says this delay has been blamed on Jeremy Corbyn, even though the NCC is entirely independent of the Party leadership and staff working on behalf of the NEC.
One of Jennie Formby’s earliest acts as General Secretary was to direct that staff should stop delaying the progress of Jackie Walker’s case, and ask that it should be presented to the NCC as soon as possible. Despite this direction, the case was delayed. The case was only presented to the NCC after former disaffected staff members left and another staff member took over as Director of the Governance and Legal Unit.
Jackie Walker was expelled from the Party earlier this year, while Jennie Formby was General Secretary and indeed after these disaffected staff members had stopped working for the Party. If there was any desire to interfere in the NCC’s processes in support of Jackie Walker, how do they explain Jackie Walker being expelled this year, while Jennie Formby was General Secretary, and after these staffers stopped working for the Party?
Any suggestion that there was any attempt by Jennie Formby or the Leader’s Office to interfere in Jackie Walker’s case is clearly entirely untrue and unsubstantiated.
Lawyers acting on behalf of Jackie Walker repeatedly threatened legal action and made complaints about the process, alleging bias against Jackie Walker and political interference to pre-determine the outcome of her case. It was for this reason that concerns were raised that if it was a similar panel to those that ruled on two recent high profile antisemitism cases, it would open the Party up to legal challenge on the basis of alleged bias against Jackie Walker and an unfair process. NCC panels (under the procedural rules applicable at the time) were appointed by the NCC Chair, and should have been selected so that all available members of the NCC have an equal opportunity to be appointed to panels.
Any successful legal challenge to a disciplinary outcome (which would be brought against the General Secretary representing the Party) would be extremely costly and would result in the NCC’s decision to expel an individual member being overturned in the courts, and therefore that expelled member being allowed back into the Party.
During the brief period when one of Iain McNicol’s advisers - who was politically opposed to Jennie Formby - was serving his notice he had access to Jennie’s inbox. He left shortly afterwards. Jennie Formby instructed staff to use her Labour email address, and set up an out of office on her Unite email.
On allegations that Jennie Formby hired people who downgraded recommendations on cases:
A Labour Party spokesperson said:
“This is a malicious political attack on Party staff by disaffected, politically hostile former employees.
“The Party’s records show that current Party staff have taken stronger and swifter action on antisemitism cases in the last twelve months than former disaffected staffers took in the preceding three years. These staff have increased the rate at which antisemitism cases have been dealt with more than four-fold during the time that Jennie Formby has been General Secretary.”
On settlements with former staffers
A Labour Party spokesperson said:
“The Labour Party has a legal responsibility to protect individuals’ data under data protection legislation.
“Labour’s standard terms of settlement were drawn up with advice from specialist external solicitors to contain completely transparent confidentiality provisions and specific exceptions for protective disclosures.
“Like any organisation, the Party has used standard settlement agreements which require former employees to maintain the confidentiality of private information obtained during their employment, but would never, and could never, seek to use settlement agreements which stop the disclosure of discrimination, harassment or victimisation. In government, the Labour Party would legislate to ban agreements which stop the disclosure of discrimination, harassment or victimisation.” |