British Indian Ocean Territory: Negotiations
Debate between Barry Gardiner and David Lammy(3 weeks, 6 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Lammy
The right hon. Gentleman has immense experience in this House. As Members of this House know, sometimes one is able to strike up friendships across the Floor—we are fellow Spurs supporters—but Mauritius is a country that is part of our Commonwealth, so I cannot possibly associate myself with the remarks that the right hon. Gentleman has just made.
Let us be clear: what was done to the Chagossians back in the 1960s is a matter of regret. It is a sore that has run through our relations with Mauritius, but also with substantial parts of the global south. That is why we continued the negotiations and struck this agreement—the right hon. Gentleman may well have disagreed with the last Government, but I remind him that they undertook 11 rounds of negotiations.
Barry Gardiner (Brent West) (Lab)
On the penultimate day of the last Labour Government, the then Foreign Secretary, David Miliband, created the marine protected area around the British Indian Ocean Territory. At that time, it was the largest protected area anywhere in the world. As my right hon. Friend knows, the last time a prosecution was brought for illegal fishing in that area was in 2020, four and a half years ago, and the way in which that prosecution was conducted meant that a £10,000 fine—a mere slap on the wrist—was levied against the vessel. Such vessels take hundreds of thousands of pounds of fish out of that marine protected area. Who is going to pay? How committed are the Government to ensuring that that marine protected area continues to exist, and how will they ensure that the minimal level of protection that is currently in place is increased?
Mr Lammy
I know how my hon. Friend has championed these issues for many years, and I reassure him that this was an issue of intense discussion under the last Government and under this Government. We recognise the importance of that marine protected area, and when he sees the provisions of the treaty come forward, we can of course have a further discussion on that surety.
Israel and Gaza
Debate between Barry Gardiner and David Lammy(3 months, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Lammy
I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s continued championing of these issues. He is right to mention the importance of water. I think it is now half a million people who are at category 5—the definition that constitutes starvation and famine—and in large part that is due to there being no access to clean water. He knows of the scenes of sewage getting into the system. The lack of clean water is a desperate situation. In the end, what we need is a ceasefire, because only with a ceasefire can reconstruction work begin.
Barry Gardiner (Brent West) (Lab)
My right hon. Friend was absolutely right to speak of the need for an immediate ceasefire and the need to restore funding to UNRWA. I welcome both those moves. He also spoke of the Government’s needing to make an assessment of Israeli compliance with international humanitarian law in Gaza, but the question then arises: after that assessment has been made, what is going to happen? He said in his statement that the horror must end now, and indeed it must, but he has just explained to the hon. Member for North Herefordshire (Ellie Chowns) that to cease supplying arms to Israel would cause, as he sees it, a greater problem. What is the leverage that he has? If the horror must end now, and it must, then this Government must be able to take some actions once they have reviewed and received the legal assessment that he has called for. I am prepared to give him time to get that assessment, but I want to know what he is going to do once he has got it.
Mr Lammy
My hon. Friend is very experienced, experienced enough to know that the minute any individual describes their leverage, that leverage is lost. Therefore, if he will forgive me, I will not share that at the Dispatch Box at this stage. However, the passion that lies behind his question is a concern that, for nine months, Foreign Secretaries have stood at this Dispatch Box and said that the aid must get in and that we must follow international humanitarian law—and now, months later, there is a new Foreign Secretary at the Dispatch Box and there are still serious concerns about international humanitarian law and the aid has simply not got in in the quantities needed. He shares my frustration, and it was frustration indeed that I shared with leaders in Israel.
HEALTH
Debate between Barry Gardiner and David Lammy(11 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Lammy
In fact, it will be worse than that, because the London borough of Haringey, which has a population of about 250,000, will have one 24-hour police station. My hon. Friend will understand the concern in my constituency, which was the epicentre of riots in August 2011, when my constituents watched their homes and shops burn in front of their very eyes. She will recognise that in the days following those riots, the big thing that people in London and, unfortunately, other cities were saying was “Where are the police?” It is deeply worrying to tell them that there will be a diminution of police stations on this scale, as well as fewer police officers.
Boris Johnson was in my constituency last week, and he said that the police station in Tottenham would not close. However, we want to drill into the detail, because on the basis of the figures that have been presented to us, with borough commanders touring their MPs’ offices with proposals, it looks as though in fact it will close. Even if it does not close, it is possible that no police will be in it, because there is a difference between those who run the police property services, and therefore the police stations, and those in charge of actually marshalling the police. It is outrageous that we could be in a situation in Tottenham where there are no police officers in our police station.
You, Mr Deputy Speaker, and others will have seen in the newspapers the discussion about access points, points of contact and pop-up shops. Yes, of course we want to make our police station accessible, but constituents who come to me to talk about gang crime, and are worried about the young man they know is in a gang and want to report it quietly, do not want to negotiate with someone having a latte in a coffee shop or with someone in Sainsbury’s. We need to be very careful about access and contact. What people understand, all over the world, is a police station. People know what it is and they know that the police have a freehold on the building so that when they move into the area it will still be there in five years, 10 years and 15 years. They have seen these neighbourhood offices but know that so many of them have the shutters down because there is a short-term lease and it could be gone next year. That is not what they want from the police service.
The Mayor’s office has palmed off the task of stakeholder consultation to borough commanders, many of whom are finding themselves in deeply politicised budgetary decisions. The deputy Mayor, Stephen Greenhalgh, has deigned to visit every borough as part of a public consultation process in the new year, and we should be grateful for that, although I am deeply concerned that he might find himself embroiled in an inappropriate situation. I hope that he will spend more than just an hour in Tottenham discussing this very important consultation.
This is happening at a time when we see not only a threat to our police station but to our fire station—the second-busiest fire station in London—which is facing closure under proposed budgetary cuts. The fact that closing or, at least, halving the capacity of such a vital fire station is even being considered shows how uninformed, ill-judged and reckless is the way in which these efficiencies and cuts are being handled.
Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)
My right hon. Friend will know that the fire brigade in London has requested that the Mayor review the strategy to see how quickly fire appliances can get to fires. It believes that, at present, the strategy is inadequate, but the process has been put back by a couple of months, so the public are not able to review it. Is my right hon. Friend as concerned as I am about the ability of appliances to reach fires in time?