Gerald Kaufman’s “Jewish money” slur: responses from the Opposition Chief Whip and Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards to our letters
Following Campaign Against Antisemitism’s letter to the Opposition Chief Whip, which has now been supplemented by letters from other Jewish charities, the Opposition Chief Whip has agreed to meet with Sir Gerald Kaufman, but is refusing to confirm when, or whether this is part of a formal disciplinary process. Sir Gerald made an antisemitic speech a week ago in the presence of other MPs in which he claimed that British Jews were using “Jewish money” to subvert the British government so that Israeli Jews could shoot innocent people. So far the Labour Party has limited its response to a single sentence: “The views as reported, do not reflect the views of The Labour Party.”
We have also received a response from office of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards, suggesting that the views of Sir Gerald Kaufman are views on “the situation in the Middle East” and do not bring the reputation of the House of Commons into disrepute.
We have responded that: “Sir Gerald claimed that British Jews were using “Jewish money” to subvert the government so that Israeli Jews may shoot innocent people. This combines antisemitic conspiracy theory with antisemitic blood libel. The fact that the Father of the House made such comments and the fact that other MPs sat in taciturn acceptance of those comments patently brings the House into disrepute. How are Jewish people supposed to have faith in an institution whose members engage in such conduct? The Parliamentary Commissioner must exercise the powers of her office to investigate and take action against this conduct.”
The full response from the office of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards was:
Dear Mr Falter
Thank you for your email addressed to the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards, Kathryn Hudson. I have been asked to reply.
I know that the situation in the Middle East continues to cause great concern and much debate across groups of widely varying opinions and I can see that you feel strongly about the particular view expressed by Sir Gerald on this occasion. However, the remit of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards is specifically to investigate alleged breaches of the rules of conduct, set out in part V of the House of Commons Code of Conduct. There are some matters that she cannot look at and, as you will see from this leaflet, she may not generally look into complaints about an MP’s views or opinions, wherever they are expressed.
The only exception to this is where an MP’s conduct has caused significant damage to the reputation of the House of Commons as a whole or to Members of the House generally which is, as you have set out, contained in paragraph 16 of the Code of Conduct. This would be a high bar to reach since opinions are usually linked to the individual expressing them rather than to the House or other Members. The Committee on Standards has also made clear that it considers the test to be one that will be met only in extreme and extremely limited circumstances.
I do not think that the Commissioner would be likely to begin an inquiry based on the evidence you have provided; I do not think she would be likely to consider Sir Gerald’s comments to have caused significant damage to the House of Commons as a whole, or to MPs generally. Similarly, I do not think that the Commissioner would be likely to consider the silence of other MPs present at the meeting to have put them in breach of paragraph 16 of the Code of Conduct.
Yours sincerely,
Gwen Harrison
Our full response to Ms Harrison’s letter was:
Dear Ms Harrison,
You appear to have misunderstood my complaint. Sir Gerald Kaufman did not express a “view” on the Middle East, he made an antisemitic statement. Sir Gerald claimed that British Jews were using “Jewish money” to subvert the government so that Israeli Jews may shoot innocent people. This combines antisemitic conspiracy theory with antisemitic blood libel.
The fact that the Father of the House made such comments and the fact that other MPs sat in taciturn acceptance of those comments patently brings the House into disrepute. How are Jewish people supposed to have faith in an institution whose members engage in such conduct? The Parliamentary Commissioner must exercise the powers of her office to investigate and take action against this conduct.
Yours sincerely,
Gideon Falter
Chairman
Campaign Against Antisemitism
Ms Harrison then replied:
Dear Mr Falter
I understand the point you make but I think Sir Gerald’s words are still caught by the bar on the Commissioner investigating complaints about a Member’s views and opinions.
The test set out in paragraph 16 is, as I have explained, one which the Committee on Standards considers likely to be met only in extreme and extremely limited circumstances; it requires that the Member’s conduct causes significant damage to the reputation and integrity of the House as a whole or of its Members generally. I can see that you feel very strongly but, as I explained earlier, I do not think the Commissioner would be likely to begin an inquiry into this matter.
Yours sincerely
Gwen Harrison
Our final response was:
Dear Ms Harrison,
Thank you for your e-mail. Please clarify whether you are stating your opinion or the opinion of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards. If the Commissioner has not yet made a decision, I would be grateful if you would put this matter before her.
Yours sincerely,
Gideon Falter
Chairman
Campaign Against Antisemitism
