Oral Answers to Questions
Debate between Clive Betts and David Lammy(1 month, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Mr David Lammy)
Palestinian communities have suffered horrific violence at the hands of Israeli settlers. In October, the Government sanctioned three outposts and four entities linked to violence in the west bank. I will not speculate about future sanctions designations—doing so would only reduce their impact—but we continue to explore all options to take tougher action.
Mr Lammy
I have been very clear in office. In October, I targeted the Amana settler group, which operates as a commercial construction company, and I was pleased that the US followed us in those sanctions just last week. I was also concerned about a religious school promoting violence against Jews, and I sanctioned it. A non-governmental organisation provided volunteers for illegal outposts, and I sanctioned it. Of course we continue to keep sanctions policy under consideration. We are very concerned by the violence, by the expansion, and by the rhetoric that we are hearing from members of the Israeli Government.
Mr Betts
I listened carefully to my right hon. Friend’s answer. He said that he will not speculate on future sanctions, but the two Israeli Ministers named are encouraging settler violence and have called for the annexation of the west bank by Israel. Does my right hon. Friend accept that, even if he will not talk about further sanctions today, he can recognise that the threat of annexation is real, and that until we come out clearly in support of an independent Palestinian state, the settlers will continue their violence in the belief that they will eventually achieve the annexation that they want?
Mr Lammy
I commend my hon. Friend for standing up on those issues. Let me be absolutely clear: annexation would be illegal and we would stand opposed to it. I make that fundamentally clear. He should be assured that we will continue to speak out both against illegal violence against settlers and against settler expansion.
Ukraine: 1,000 Days
Debate between Clive Betts and David Lammy(1 month, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Lammy
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her work previously on the Foreign Affairs Committee. We were able to work together quite well when I was in my shadow role.
The hon. Lady is right to say that we have a job to do now. The mantra is: one American President at a time. We have another eight weeks first, and Ukraine is going into winter—it may well be a bitter winter. The good news is that we are now getting the money out of the door. Where there have been gaps between pledging and getting the kit and the equipment into Ukraine, there is now a doubling down across Europe and among the international G7 partners to ensure the kit gets there and puts Ukraine in a strong position going into 2025.
I am confident that on 20 January, Ukraine will be in an even stronger position than it is today. That will be because of that combined allied effort and because of the work in the United Kingdom by the Defence Secretary, the Prime Minister and myself to ensure that we are Ukraine’s strongest partner and that we are doing everything we can to support it military, economically and on a humanitarian level.
Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)
I thank my right hon. Friend for his statement. Indeed, I thank him and our right hon. Friend the Defence Secretary for their joint leadership on this matter.
The key issue, as far as I can see, is the shipment of oil. Oil is the lifeblood for Putin financing his illegal activities, and sanctions are the way we have to stop that. Will my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary give an assurance that there are now no British individuals or companies engaged in the illegal shipment of oil or its financing? If he cannot give that assurance today, what further action will he take so he can come to the House in the relatively near future and do so?
Mr Lammy
My hon. Friend’s question allows me to say that sanctions have deprived Russia of more than $400 billion since February 2022, which is equivalent to four more years of funding for the invasion. He is also right, however, that there is a shadow fleet, and over the past few months, I have issued more sanctions on those behind that. He is also right to single out the enablers, who might exist in our own country. He can trust me: I keep this under close scrutiny and there is more to come, I suspect, over the coming days. He is absolutely right to make it crystal clear that we cannot have UK businesses and enterprising individuals supporting Russia in its war effort.
Middle East
Debate between Clive Betts and David Lammy(2 months, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Lammy
The UN is absolutely not embellishing what is, very sadly, going on in Gaza right now, and that is why the United Kingdom has suspended arms sales for use in Gaza.
Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)
Despite all the pleading, the Israeli Government ignore requests to allow aid into Gaza, ignore requests to stop the destruction of Gaza and ignore requests to stop settler violence in the west bank? I congratulate the Foreign Secretary on the sanctions against the settlers and settler organisations engaged in that violence. Will he now extend the sanctions to members of the Israeli Government who have been promoting violence in the west bank? Also, does he agree that, if the Israeli Government carry out their restrictions on UNRWA in a formalised way, members of that Government who agree to that should be sanctioned for it? Otherwise, are we not just issuing empty threats and empty words that the Israelis ignore?
Mr Lammy
My hon. Friend will know that I have condemned in no uncertain terms, both as shadow Foreign Secretary and as Foreign Secretary, some of the vile language that has been used by extremist elements within the Israeli Government. I heard the former Foreign Secretary on the radio talking about sanctions which could have been implemented that he chose not to implement. I can assure my hon. Friend that I am keeping those sanctions under review.
Lebanon
Debate between Clive Betts and David Lammy(5 months, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Lammy
Over my 24 years in this place, the strangest of friendships have been struck up across party lines. Of course I will meet the right hon. Gentleman and the group, because this is a very serious cross-party issue and I know that all Members of this House want to see de-escalation.
Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)
I welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement. We must deplore the loss of civilian life, particularly of children, on either side of the divide, so I welcome his calls for de-escalation in Lebanon and repeated calls for an immediate ceasefire in Gaza.
Looking ahead to long-term peace and to a two-state solution, how does my right hon. Friend deal with the comments of the Israeli Prime Minister, who said the other day that Samaria and Judea are an integral part of Israel and that they are not occupying the west bank? In that situation, have the Government not got to get on with recognising a Palestinian state, rather than waiting for the Israelis to come round to the view that it is acceptable to them?
Mr Lammy
I am grateful to my very good friend, who has been championing these issues for many, many years. This last period has, of course, been of huge concern to him and his constituents. I was horrified by the degree of expansion that I saw in the west bank a few weeks ago: there has been more in the past year than we have seen in 20 years. The violence is unacceptable, and the tone, rhetoric and statements from some members of the Government are very alarming indeed. As my hon. Friend would expect, I pressed these issues with both the Israeli Prime Minister and the Israeli President, and we keep the situation in the west bank under close review.
Ceasefire in Gaza
Debate between Clive Betts and David Lammy(10 months, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Lammy
I am grateful to my hon. Friend. This is a moment when the whole House can come together. Let us be clear, whether from the Government Benches or the Opposition Benches, that we all agree that the time for a ceasefire has come, to end the bloodshed and suffering, and to allow a sustained effort to salvage the hope of a two-state solution. There are three motions before us today. Only one can be supported by all sides.
Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)
We all want to see the fighting stopped. We cannot begin to imagine the horrors of what will happen if Israel goes into Rafah. The problem, as I think we can all imagine, is that Israel might ignore international opinion and do just that. Can we start to think about what action we will take—what sanctions we will propose—against Israel if it does that? There have to be consequences for Israel if it behaves in that way, completely contrary to all international opinion.
Mr Lammy
My hon. Friend knows that the UN is meeting to discuss those very issues. I think we in this Chamber can all agree that, were that to happen, particularly over Ramadan, as is being indicated at the moment by the Israeli Government, it would be a catastrophic mistake.
Labour supports an immediate humanitarian ceasefire, a stop to fighting by both sides now, the release of hostages, a surge of aid into Gaza, and a two-state solution.
Violence Reduction, Policing and Criminal Justice
Debate between Clive Betts and David Lammy(1 year, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Lammy
I will turn to those issues shortly. Everyone in this House wants the fighting to end. The central debate is about the steps to bring that about, and there is a discussion across this place among Members, all of whom want peace and all of whom want to see the loss of life come to an end. [Interruption.] I respect the hon. Member’s position, and I will come to that in a moment.
Peace is never won easily; peace is possible because of diplomacy, because of compromise and because of negotiation. It is our duty in this House to support all the necessary and practical steps to get us there.
Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)
I think we all understand that there have to be steps towards an eventual conclusion, and we all want to see the fighting stop. The Labour amendment calls for a “cessation of fighting”, which presumably means a cessation of firing. What is the difference between a cessation of firing and a ceasefire?
Housing and Planning Bill
Debate between Clive Betts and David Lammy
Mr Betts
Yes. It is interesting that my hon. Friend mentions the LGA, which argued very strongly, on a cross-party basis, that the policy of the right to buy for housing association tenants should not be funded by the sale of local authority assets. I will make sure that I get the Committee’s words right in quoting them to the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake). We said that
“public policy should usually be funded by central Government, rather than through a levy on local authorities.”
As usual, perhaps the Government ought to listen to the words of the Select Committee. The whole issue of the right to buy for housing association tenants would not be a significant point of contention if the Government were not forcing the sale of local authority homes to pay for it—and we still have not had the figures to show how that would work. With regard to sorting out more flexibility on starter homes, I still do not know what their policy amounts to because of the lack of clarity that we have had.
Finally, I want to raise two really worrying issues where the Select Committee did not come to a view—lifetime tenancies and pay to stay. We welcome the fact that pay to stay will be voluntary for housing associations. However, the situation will be a bit strange in a street where two tenants are earning the same amount of money and paying similar rents, one in a housing association property and one in a council property, and one finds their rent going up and the other does not. Let us get away from the talk about subsidised council housing. There is no central Government subsidy to housing revenue accounts, so there is no subsidy to council tenants earning a little more than their neighbours next door, but what there will be, if this measure goes through, is a tax on those tenants, because the money will go not to the council but to the Treasury, and the Treasury levying a charge on a council tenant is a tax by any other name—of course it is.
Let us put that together with the lifetime tenancy issue. Are we really going to end up with council estates where some homes will have been sold, but in different proportions in different areas, some of which will then have been sold on into the private rented sector, so that we have an increasing mixture of people on the lowest incomes and people there on only a short-term basis? By forcing their rents up, we will push out people on slightly higher incomes who may have a long-term commitment to the area and roots in the area. They may be the people who run the local housing association, the local residents group or the local community forums, and are really active there. Of course, the very same people will be the longer-term tenants who have a real interest in and long-term commitment to their area. What does this policy, and this mixture of policies, do for social cohesion? It undermines the whole idea of a long-term commitment by people who are rooted in their areas and want to stay there because they enjoy living there, they have connections there, their kids go to school there, and that is where their home is.