UK Politics: Pro-Israel Influence

[Relevant documents: First Report of the Foreign Affairs Committee of Session 2024-26, Israel-Palestine conflict, HC 488, and the Government response, HC 1374; and oral evidence taken before the Foreign Affairs Committee on 16 June, 13 May, 22 April and 11 March 2025, on The Israeli-Palestinian conflict, Session 2024-26, HC 488.]

I remind hon. Members that “Rules of behaviour and courtesies in the House of Commons” notes:

“The privilege of freedom of speech in debate…allows us to conduct our debates without fear of outside interference. But it is a freedom which should be exercised responsibly, in the public interest and taking into account the interests of others outside this House.”

Additionally, paragraph 21.21 of “Erskine May” states:

“Good temper and moderation are the characteristics of parliamentary language.”

The rules of behaviour further note:

“There is no hard and fast list of unparliamentary words. Whether something said is a breach of order depends on the context…Any abusive or insulting language used in debate will be required to be withdrawn immediately.”

I remind members of the public that they are here to observe proceedings, not to participate or comment. Demonstrations of approval or disapproval are not permitted and any interruption of proceedings will result in removal from the Public Gallery.

The debate is very oversubscribed and there will be limited time. If a Member’s name is not on my list to speak, they will not be called. I still expect anyone who is on my list to bob, and any interventions will be minimal, in response and in asking. I hope I have made myself perfectly clear.

I beg to move,

That this House has considered e-petition 752646 relating to pro-Israel influence on UK politics and democracy.

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mrs Harris.

On a point of order, Mrs Harris. This is no criticism of my hon. Friend the Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (John Lamont), who introduces the debate on behalf of the Petitions Committee, but am I alone in feeling distinctly uneasy about this debate? Why is Israel singled out in this way? Why not Gulf countries, Iran, eastern Europe or the USA? The petition is being discussed at a time when the Jewish community are clearly under threat and are suffering numerous hideous attacks. I am not sure I trust the motivation of the petition organisers. I fear the whole thing smacks of an antisemitic conspiracy theory.

Thank you for your point of order and for notifying me of it in advance, but decisions relating to the publication of e-petitions and the scheduling of e-petition debates properly sit with the Petitions Committee. If you have not already done so, I encourage you to make direct contact with the Chair of that Committee regarding your concerns. I reiterate that, as Mr Speaker and the Deputy Speakers regularly remind Members in the main Chamber, there is a need for “good temper and moderation” in parliamentary language, as set out in “Erskine May” paragraph 21.21. The same rules and courtesies apply in Westminster Hall, and you can be assured that I will exercise all my authority to make sure they are complied with.

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir Andrew Mitchell) for his point of order. As he will discover during the course of my contribution, I have a great degree of sympathy with his remarks. I refer hon. Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. While I will take interventions later in my speech, I would be grateful if I could develop some of my key points before doing so.

The petition was created by Andy Kalil and signed by over 118,000 people. I begin by making it explicit that I do not support the petition; indeed, I believe that it raises profound concerns, not because it seeks scrutiny of politics or lobbying but because of the way in which it frames those concerns and the sinister narratives upon which it draws. The debate raises important questions not simply about foreign influence or political advocacy but about the boundaries between legitimate political criticism and conspiracy theories that have historically fuelled antisemitism.

Let me also say at the outset that I recognise that many of the people who signed the petition, including the 194 in my constituency, may have done so in good faith. Many will have believed that they were supporting transparency in public life or expressing concern about the events in the middle east. I do not question their motives; however, Parliament has a responsibility not only to consider what is being said but to understand the historical and political context in which it is being said. We have a duty to recognise when language and ideas echo prejudices that have caused immense harm throughout history.

The petition calls for a public inquiry into what it describes as

“pro-Israel influence on politics and democracy”.

That wording matters. The petition does not call for a review of lobbying regulations generally. It does not seek greater transparency about foreign influence from all states; indeed, it cynically overlooks the fact that there are campaigns and lobbies operating in the UK in support of almost all countries in the world. It does not ask for a broad examination of how political advocacy works in the United Kingdom. Instead, it singles out one country and, more importantly, invokes a long-standing allegation that people who support that country exercise hidden or improper influence over our democratic institutions.

I briefly declare an interest: the hon. Member for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket (Peter Prinsley) and I co-chair the all-party parliamentary group on British Jews. I applaud my hon. Friend for the robust way in which he is introducing the debate. Does he agree that, given global events, our Jewish constituents are justified in feeling uneasy, and that we must absolutely ensure that we do not import those conflicts on to the streets of our country?

My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. Against a backdrop of the Jewish community asking for extra protections, it is entirely understandable that a petition built around allegations of hidden pro-Israel influence has generated such deep anxiety. Many British Jews hear in that language echoes of accusations that have been directed at their community for generations. We should listen carefully to those concerns.

That does not mean that public life should be beyond scrutiny—quite the opposite. Transparency is essential, foreign influence should be taken seriously, lobbying should be transparent, political donations should be properly regulated and Parliament should remain vigilant against inappropriate influence from any source, but those principles must be applied consistently. If concerns about lobbying exist, they should be addressed through the established mechanisms that already exist.

The challenge for all Members today is to ensure that the debate does not inadvertently amplify the very narratives that have caused such concern. We must expose those narratives, not to amplify but to challenge conspiracy theories. Parliament is at its strongest when it combines robust democratic debate with moral clarity. As legislators, we have a responsibility to understand that hatred evolves and adopts new language to advance old prejudices. We must now respond appropriately.

Order. The clock displays are broken, but we are working on fixing them. I will notify Members by coughing just before their three minutes are up.

I refer Members and the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. Let us be clear: scrutinising foreign influence is not, in itself, a problem. Any healthy democracy should look hard at lobbying, donations, pressure groups and influence campaigns wherever they come from. That is not and should not be in question, but it is exactly my concern about how this debate is framed. They should be scrutinised wherever they come from.

If this is about foreign influence in general, let us have that conversation properly; if it is about transparency in lobbying, let us have that conversation, too; but if the concerns keep landing on Israel specifically, more than they do on other countries, as has been mentioned, it is worth pausing and asking why that might be. There is something deeply uncomfortable about the idea that, out of nearly 200 countries, it is the world’s only Jewish state that needs a special parliamentary inquiry into hidden influence. I gently note that this type of framing has a very long history, and it is not always an easy one.

Jewish people have, at different points over the centuries, faced accusations of secretly controlling Governments, finance or politicians from behind the scenes. I have heard versions of those accusations, sometimes about me personally. I am not suggesting that everyone who supports this debate has that intention, but it is worth being honest about the fact that the framing echoes something older, more sinister and more troubling.

I hope, Mrs Harris, that anything I say here today will not cause you to cough or choke, but I want to be very clear that the motion we are discussing is not about lobbying and it is not about the influence of Israel on politics. This is yet another angle of the antisemitism that we are experiencing in this country, especially driven by the left.

As other speakers have already pointed out today, it is a very dangerous idea that somehow or other Jews control politics in our country. We have seen examples throughout history, from when Jews were accused of co-ordinating a program of poisoning wells that caused the black death, to the Holocaust, when Hitler accused Jewish influence of causing Germany’s defeat in the first world war, and therefore claimed that it had to be dealt with. We have seen the impact of antisemitism in this country. We only have to look at what happened in Golders Green, in Manchester and in other attempted bombings of synagogues to see the threat that Jews feel in this country, and to know that the poison of antisemitism has an impact on people’s lives.

I agree with other speakers that if there is a secret Jewish lobby seeking to influence Government in the United Kingdom, it is not being very successful, because Israel has been the most scrutinised country and their Government the most scrutinised Government here in Parliament. In the House and in Westminster Hall, almost every week we have questions, urgent questions, written questions, statements, debates and so on about Israel. Some of our own domestic affairs, such as unemployment, inflation and the health service, receive less scrutiny, so to say that somehow or other the Jewish lobby has influenced the direction of our politics just does not withstand examination.

Thank you for calling me to speak, Mrs Harris. I congratulate the hon. Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (John Lamont) on his opening speech.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Alex Davies-Jones) said, there is absolutely nothing wrong with engaging in deep scrutiny of the things that may or may not influence our politics, but it should not just be focused on Israel. China, Iran, Russia and Belarus are all bad-faith actors that seek to change the way we do things in this country, yet there often seems to be very little attention given to them.

That worries me, for two reasons. For those who do not know, my wife is Jewish. I am not “declaring” that, because it is not something that I need to declare, but it is relevant for the purpose of this conversation. She is a British Jew, a British citizen. She had the audacity in a previous life to stand for election and get elected, and she was a much better MP than I ever will be. [Hon. Members: “Hear, Hear.”] [Laughter.] To fund that election campaign, my wife took a donation from a British citizen who happened to be Jewish. What happened? Her name appeared on a list propagated by the Green party’s deputy leader, Mothin Ali—it continues to be propagated to this day, by the way—which talks about politicians being