Economic Activity of Public Bodies (Overseas Matters) Bill

Debate between Margaret Hodge and Andrew Percy

Report stage
Wednesday 25th October 2023 Commons Chamber

[Dame Margaret Hodge]

I beg to differ with what the right hon. Gentleman says, because the Bill in itself is so contentious that it will not actually stop activity, but encourage those who want to argue against the state of Israel and want to argue against what is currently happening in the Israeli-Palestinian war. It will give them added strength, so I simply disagree with him. At a time like this, the worst thing we can do is introduce contentious legislation.

[Andrew Percy (Brigg and Goole) (Con)]

I respect the right hon. Lady for her views, but just on that last point, the idea that we should not do something because the people who hate Israel will be even angrier about it does not seem to me to be a very credible argument. These people were out in front of the embassy in the immediate aftermath of the attacks demanding boycotts of Israel, before Israel even had time to respond. Is it really a credible argument that we should not do this because it might make the people who hate Israel even angrier?

[Dame Margaret Hodge]

I hope that as I develop my argument the hon. Member will listen, because it is the flaws in the Bill that I think actually damage its intention, which is to limit and deal with the evils of the BDS movement. I said a little earlier that I oppose the BDS movement. I recognise that the BDS movement probably has the intention of trying to destroy the state of Israel. I want to tackle that, but I think that doing so in the way that is proposed in this legislation will simply damage that intent, not meet it. I think maybe that is where he and I differ.

The Bill is flawed in so many ways. The main reason is that it is not designed to tackle a problem; it is designed to score a crude party political point, as I said on Second Reading. I am afraid that the Secretary of State himself gave the game away on that occasion, when he said:

“The question for every Member of this House is whether they stand with us against antisemitism or not.”—[Official Report, 3 July 2023; Vol. 735, c. 591.]

I respectfully say to him that that is not the question, but it does lay bare the truth about the Bill. The Government believe that they have set a trap for the Opposition: if we speak against the Bill, they will try to paint us as antisemites. But I say to the Government that if they pass the Bill in its current form, it is they who will be encouraging antisemitism by fuelling hatred. They will be encouraging antisemitism by specifying on the face of the Bill only one country where the boycott of goods would be illegal, simply confirming in people’s minds that Israel and the Israel-Palestine conflict is a special case, different from all the other cases around. That is a constant problem, a constant issue that is raised with me by people who are worried and concerned—over time, not particularly in relation to the war as it stands—about attitudes in the UK to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Everybody says, “Why pick on Israel?”

So why do the Government now select Israel? It is they who are encouraging antisemitism by gagging free speech in our universities and council chambers. It is they who are encouraging antisemitism by trampling on the democratic rights of local politicians. It is an incredible arrogance for us as MPs to sit here and think that somehow we are better than, or different from, locally elected councillors who also have political views and who also carry out important democratic jobs in their councils.

It is the Government who are encouraging antisemitism by ignoring our obligations under the UN Security Council. It is they who are encouraging antisemitism—and I say this on the basis of my experience of fighting the British National party in Barking from 2006 until the general election in 2010—by refusing to engage in an open debate. By closing the debate, they give added credibility to the idea that those who seek to destroy the state of Israel are somehow wronged.

Holocaust Memorial Day

Debate between Margaret Hodge and Andrew Percy

Thursday 23rd January 2020 Commons Chamber

[Andrew Percy]

I entirely agree with the hon. Lady—I would say my hon. Friend—who has been incredibly brave in calling out antisemitism herself, as well as the subject of antisemitism. I pay tribute to her work as vice-chair of our APPG and entirely agree with her. There might be an opportunity to address some of this through the online harms Bill, but it is time that we updated our electoral law to ensure that tougher measures are in place. It has been a very long time since there was a full root-and-branch review of this country’s electoral law, and we should absolutely carry that out.

I want to move on from the party political problems by just saying that I agree entirely with the Jewish Labour Movement that it is wholly inappropriate that somebody has been nominated by the Labour party—it was, at least, reported this weekend that they had been nominated—to serve in the House of Lords when they are at the centre of allegations of covering up antisemitism and intervening in antisemitism inquiries within that party. I know that many Labour Members share that view, principally because the Labour party has a proud history of fighting all forms of racism.

[Dame Margaret Hodge]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his newly acquired position as chair of the APPG and look forward to working with him on it. I share his feelings about the nomination to the House of Lords. Does he agree that we will totally abolish antisemitism from the mainstream of all political parties only if the collective leadership of those parties really shows a zero-tolerance approach in not just their words but their actions?

[Andrew Percy]

I cannot disagree with a word that the right hon. Lady says. As she has powerfully outlined in previous debates, she has been on the receiving end of vile antisemitic abuse. This does come from the leadership down. Leadership is needed from all of us, but there should be no doubt about the position of our political leaders.

That is why I agree with the Minister’s comments and urge colleagues to sign up to the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance definition. The APPG sat in Portcullis House for a very long time yesterday to encourage colleagues to sign up. Many still have not done so, but I ask them please to sign up to the IHRA definition, because that is one way in which all of us can demonstrate leadership and show our commitment to zero tolerance of antisemitism.

Of course, antisemitism and antisemitic tropes were the beating heart of Nazism, yet in the past few years there has been a resurgence of holocaust denial, and the holocaust has been distorted and denigrated. Sadly, the context is worsening, particularly online. An American study from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology found that fake news is 70% more likely to be shared on social media than a true story. The Antisemitism Policy Trust and the Community Security Trust have found that the number of searches for “holocaust hoax” on Holocaust Memorial Day is 30% above the average for the rest of the year. If someone types the words “Jew joke” into Google, they will find some of the most shocking and disgusting antisemitic, holocaust-minimising and racist bile they can find. This all occurs in an online space that impacts on our real world, and a particular concern at the moment is seen in the use of gaming, with gamers targeted as a route into antisemitism. That surprised me, but perhaps it does make sense, and we have to do a lot about that.

As the Institute for Jewish Policy Research has shown, the chances are that while only 2.5% of the public may be what we would understand as antisemites, one antisemitic opinion is likely to be held by some 30% of the public. Therefore, the chances of encountering antisemitism in this country are relatively high. That is not to say that 30% of people in this country are antisemitic—of course not—but it is certainly the case that we hear casual things such as, “But of course the Jews do seem to be very wealthy.” The people who say such things would not consider themselves antisemitic, but they will use such a trope. They casually throw it in without, as I say, considering themselves to be antisemitic.