Middle East

Debate between David Lammy and Caroline Nokes

Thursday 16th January 2025 Commons Chamber

[The Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Mr David Lammy)]

With permission, I will update the House on the deal announced between Israel and Hamas. Last night, US President Biden and Qatari Prime Minister Al Thani confirmed that negotiators had reached an agreement. While we await political approval for the text, the agreement is expected to come into force shortly after midday Israel time on Sunday 19 January.

After months of despair, there is now hope; a glimmer of light in the darkness; a darkness that had seemed all-consuming since Hamas’s barbaric terrorist attack on 7 October 2023. I am sure that the whole House remembers the agony as we learned the full horror of what had unfolded and the grief as we mourned those who were lost. For the hostage families, the agony has gone on and on. Members across the House will have met many of them, including the relatives of British citizen Emily Damari, and Eli Sharabi, Oded Lifschitz and Avinatan Or. I know that we have families with us in the Public Gallery. I pay tribute once again to them for their bravery, humanity and commitment to bringing the hostages home.

I invite the House to join me in remembering those murdered in captivity, including Nadav Popplewell and Yossi Sharabi. May their memories be a blessing.

I say to all those now waiting anxiously to see what this deal means for them: we are with you in the days and weeks ahead. In Gaza today, civilians will be waiting anxiously to see what this deal means for them. I say to them, too: we are with you as you begin to rebuild your lives.

After 15 months of conflict, the level of suffering defies belief. Gazans have truly been trapped in hell on earth—over 46,000 killed, so many children’s lives extinguished, schools, hospitals and homes destroyed, and hunger and disease. Almost 2 million have been forced to flee their homes, with northern Gaza cut off from the rest of the strip. A generation have been scarred by the savagery of war.

Among the victims was Hind Rajab, a five-year-old Palestinian girl killed alongside members of her family and the paramedics who came to rescue her. Among the victims were many journalists dedicated to documenting the horrors around them. Among the victims were aid workers dedicated to serving others, including British citizens John Chapman, James Henderson and James Kirby. I invite the House to join me in remembering them all. We mourn every innocent victim of this appalling war.

Beyond Israel and Gaza, the conflict has brought yet more tensions and conflict into the wider region, with unprecedented Iranian attacks, a renewed conflict in Lebanon and Houthi strikes in the Red sea and into Israel. At times, our own communities—and indeed this House—have been divided by this war. This is a moment of hope for us all, to unite in support of this ceasefire.

The agreement as negotiated has three stages. In the first six-week phase we expect that both parties will stop fighting. Thirty-three of the hostages will be freed: children, women, those over 50 and the wounded. Israel will start to redeploy to the edge of the strip. Palestinians will return to what is left of their homes. The Rafah crossing will reopen. Israel will allow 600 truckloads of aid into Gaza each day. On the 16th day, negotiations will begin on the detail of the second phase. In the second six-week phase, the male hostages under 50 will be released. Israel will complete its withdrawal from Gaza, and there will be a permanent ceasefire. Finally, a third phase will see the return of the bodies of any remaining hostages and the lifting of economic restrictions on Gaza.

As President Biden said, the elements of this deal were endorsed by the United Nations Security Council last May. It has taken tireless efforts to reach the agreement of both sides, with reports of final talks this week lasting an intense 96 hours. I congratulate all those who have contributed to getting to this stage: in particular, His Highness the Emir of Qatar and Prime Minister Al Thani; Egyptian President Sisi and Foreign Minister Abdelatty; and President Biden and Secretary Blinken, as well as President-elect Trump. The UK has been supporting them throughout.

From day one in office, the Government have pressed at every stage for an immediate ceasefire, to free the hostages, to get more aid into Gaza and to open up a path to lasting peace. I visited Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories for the third time as Foreign Secretary just a few days ago, meeting Foreign Minister Sa’ar, President Abbas and hostage families, to press for an end to this war and a plan for the future.

We have also played a leading role in the humanitarian effort, restarting funding to the United Nations Relief and Works Agency, funding field hospitals that have treated more than 300,000 Gazans, and providing more than £100 million in support to the Palestinians this financial year. I pay tribute to Foreign Office Ministers in the last Government for their work to deliver aid to Gaza. Now I am in this role, I know how hard they worked. That intense effort must continue in the days and weeks ahead.

Much remains to be done. It is critical that there is final approval of the agreement. As the Israeli Cabinet meet, I urge them to back this deal. Now is not the time for any backtracking. Both sides must implement each phase of the deal in full and on time. The history of this conflict is littered with missed opportunities. It would be a tragedy to let slip the chance before us—we must grab it with both hands. It is the chance not just for a ceasefire but for a lasting peace, and to break the cycle of violence that has inflicted so much suffering on innocent people on both sides.

The Government are committed to sustaining momentum, however fragile the process at first may be. Every hostage must be released, as set out in the agreement. Every ounce of aid promised to Gaza must reach those in need. I am sending my representative for humanitarian affairs to the region, to work closely with aid agencies, the Israeli Government and our partners to deliver on these promises.

Palestinians must also be free to return to their homes and, crucially, they will need to rebuild: rebuild their homes, rebuild their lives and rebuild their communities. They cannot possibly do that on their own. They need to feel safe and they need the international community to deliver the funds they will require. The UK had already begun to convene partners on the financing and co-ordination of recovery and reconstruction. It is essential that the coming surge of assistance is properly co-ordinated, with the access and security to get to people all that they need.

The Palestinian Authority has a crucial role to play. We want donors to support its plans for recovery, and I discussed that with President Abbas on Monday. We are providing technical and financial assistance to the PA, including to support the urgent recovery of basic services. Working with the Palestinian Authority and civil society will help lay the groundwork for an inclusive Palestinian governance in Gaza. That is the best way to re-establish local order and security. It is therefore a crucial first step in achieving not only better lives for Palestinians but a future for Gaza no longer under the control of Hamas.

Ultimately, it will take time to rebuild Gaza and rebuild trust between the two sides. I must warn the House that there are risks at every turn. But we must try to use the agreement to establish a credible pathway to a two-state solution, with equal measures of security, dignity and justice for Israelis and Palestinians alike. The decades-long conflict between Israelis and Palestinians cannot be managed; it must now be resolved.

We are not yet there and there is much negotiating still to do. As we debate in this House, fighting continues. The agreement awaits full political approval. The hostage families wait for the hostages to come home. Gazans wait for the horrors to be lifted. However, we must still recognise the significance of this moment. It has been long-awaited—frankly, it has taken far too long—and I sincerely hope it is now the basis for progress: progress on bringing the hostages home, progress on bringing relief, reconstruction and hope to long-suffering civilians, and progress towards a two-state solution with Palestinians and Israelis living in peace and security; a better future for all. I commend this statement to the House.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I call the shadow Foreign Secretary.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Lammy]

I thank the shadow Foreign Secretary for her remarks and for her tone. Doing this role, one understands the effort that one’s predecessors have put in, so I want to put on the record once again that the right hon. Members for Braintree (Mr Cleverly) and for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell) and Lord Cameron, before me, made tremendous efforts on behalf of the UK Government to get us to this point. I know that they, like me, will sincerely wish that we could have reached this point sooner. This is indeed a day on which we can be grateful for the UK’s diplomacy in getting us to this point.

The right hon. Lady asks about the role that the UK has played. She will know that it was quite right that Qatar and Egypt, with their proximity to Hamas, should be central in bringing about the ceasefire; and that the United States, with its particular relationship with Israel, should also stand alongside them. But she will know, because of our complex foreign policy relationship with all those parties, the tremendous effort that UK diplomats have put in to get us to this path. Indeed, I was with them in Israel and in the occupied territories on Monday this week.

It was very important to be with British hostage families in particular, to assure them and counsel them that my judgment was that we would get to this point, as fragile as it is—I want to emphasise the fragility—at this time, but also to be in the occupied territories, the west bank and east Jerusalem, to spend time with President Abbas, to discuss with him what now needs to happen in Gaza in terms of its reconstruction and the reform that the right hon. Lady rightly emphasises is essential for the Palestinian Authority.

The right hon. Lady knows that we have Sir Michael Barber working with the Palestinian Authority to lift up that capacity in the reforms that will be necessary to play that role—alongside others, clearly—in Gaza. When I think of others, I think about the international community as well, but alongside them it is important that the UK plays its part. I will come back to the subject of reconstruction in a moment.

The right hon. Lady rightly talks about the humanitarian situation in Gaza. We have provided £112 million in this financial year, including £41 million specifically for UNRWA. We want to see the number of trucks increase and the figure that has been set in the ceasefire agreement met. I will say this, though: the situation will require proper governance in Gaza if we are to achieve that. At the moment, we have gangs. There is a possibility, as the space opens up, that actually we will get an increase in gangs and less aid to the people who need it. This is the first phase of the deal. There will still be hostages left after the first phase and into the second phase, and potentially into the third phase. We know that able men are not part of the first phase. They need humanitarian aid at this time and hostage families press me to ensure that their loved ones are getting access to that humanitarian aid. So this is a fragile moment and the UK is pressing for a political process, because only a political process will get not just the ceasefire, but the long-term stability that means Gazans can truly rebuild their lives.

The right hon. Lady talks about a “day after” plan. The UK is ready to play a leading role in this process, with international and regional partners. It should be predicated on tangible progress, in our view, towards a Palestinian state, with Gaza and the west bank united under one Government. The Palestinian Authority’s role in Gaza must therefore be front and centre. Planning needs to advance security both for Gazans and for Israel, and Israel’s security will be fundamental if we are to bring this to an end. That will take intense negotiation and discussion. There clearly will be an important role for the international community in the coming days but, in this fragile moment of phase 1, if we are to complete phase 3 then we will need that intensity in terms of negotiation. My view is very clear: there cannot be a role for Hamas. The terrorism must come to an end. Trust has to be rebuilt. There cannot be a role for Hamas.

Only with that candle that we keep alight for a two-state solution can we actually reach the normalisation that is at the heart of any building on the Abraham accords and the relationship between Saudi Arabia and Israel that can bring a lot of prosperity for people in the middle east.

The right hon. Lady is right that Iran remains a malign force. This week, British diplomats were discussing with Iran its nuclear programme and what needs to happen if we are not to see the snapback of our sanctions as a consequence of the joint comprehensive plan of action later this year. We will do all that we can diplomatically. This is the moment when the Iranians need to step up and do the right thing, and I know that is acutely in the minds of the incoming US Administration.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the Chair of the International Development Committee.

[Sarah Champion (Rotherham) (Lab)]

I thank the Foreign Secretary for his statement and support every word that he has said.

No one wants a ceasefire more than I do. I cannot describe the tears that I and others in the House have shed for all the innocent civilians who have been murdered and maimed. I cannot think what the families of the hostages are going through, and, to be honest, I do not want to think of what the hostages themselves have endured. But the ceasefire is far from certain, the peace following it is far from certain, and the two-state solution is very far from certain. What is certain is that on 28 January the Knesset’s legislation that effectively bans UNRWA comes into force, and I am unable to see how the aid, the stability, the health systems and the schools can be implemented if that happens. My Committee will publish a report on this subject tomorrow, but can the Foreign Secretary speak now about what he is doing to urge Israel to ensure that that legislation does not come into force and that aid can flood in where it is needed?

[Mr Lammy]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for all her endeavours on these issues on behalf her Committee, and on behalf of this country. She is right that colleagues in all parts of the House, in this Parliament and the last, have shed tears about this most heartbreaking of conflicts. In my 25 years in the House, I have not seen such emotion from UK parliamentarians in relation to this central challenge.

As for the position of the UK Government, in the midst of this conflict, when there are so many children out of school, so many children orphaned and so many hospitals lying in rubble, when there is disease and famine, we cannot see how there cannot be a role for the central UN agency at this time if this peace is to hold. On Monday, I made that point to the Israeli Government again. Along with my French and German colleagues, I wrote to the Israeli Foreign Minister, making that point and pressing him on the winterisation plan that we believe must be implemented. The clock is ticking down to that Knesset legislation. What we do not want is the undermining of the peace that begins on Sunday by that legislation just a few days into its passing.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Calum Miller (Bicester and Woodstock) (LD)]

I thank the Foreign Secretary for advance sight of his statement.

This ceasefire is welcomed by all who have watched with horror as the suffering that began on 7 October 2023 has worsened for so many, and I add my thanks to all those who have worked so hard to deliver it. I am thinking today of the Palestinians and Israelis I have met whose lives have been torn apart by this conflict, and to whom this news brings a moment of hope; of the British families of Israeli hostages who continue to live with uncertainty and fear about the fate of their loved ones; and of the Palestinians whose daughters, sons, sisters, brothers, mothers and fathers have lost their lives and homes. The priority must now be ensuring that humanitarian assistance floods into Gaza, and that all possible efforts are made to secure the release of the remaining hostages. I urge the Foreign Secretary to do everything in his power—as he has just said—to persuade Israel not to implement the Knesset’s resolution on UNRWA, which would do so much harm and would undermine the progress that is being made.

I am grateful today for the fact that a deal has been reached, but I am also angry that it has taken so long. In the months of delay, there has been no relief for the hostage families. So many more lives have been lost, and so much more destruction has been visited on people in Gaza, including further deaths even since the ceasefire deal was announced. The blocks to progress have been extremists on both sides, the terrorists in Hamas and the supporters of annexation in the Israeli Cabinet: people who do not want peace, but want to erase another population from the land. So I ask the Foreign Secretary these questions.

Will the UK Government isolate the extremists and empower the majority of Israelis and Palestinians who want peace? Will he commit the UK to working tirelessly for a lasting peace through a two-state solution with a recognised Palestinian state based on the 1967 borders? Will he redouble efforts in diplomacy and through financial measures against the backers and enablers of Hamas to cut off their funds? Will he now proscribe the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps? Will he spell out to the Governments of Israel and the United States that settler violence and illegal annexation in the west bank must stop, and will the UK Government now recognise the Palestinian state?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Lammy]

My hon. Friend has been on this issue day after day; I cannot think of a colleague who has pressed me more on it. She is right to centre the families on both sides and their dignity and grace, and these historic peoples, all of whom want a home, all of whom want security and all of whom have been horribly affected by this most horrendous of wars. Our responsibility to them is to continue to press for the political process that gets us to the two-state solution that we all know is the only way to achieve lasting peace.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the Father of the House.

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

I think the Foreign Secretary has spoken for the whole House today with his tone. I am sure he would agree that it is possible to be four-square behind the Israeli Government in their right to defend themselves and defeat Hamas and at the same time to care about the suffering of the Palestinian people. Will the Foreign Secretary use his charm or whatever influence he has on the incoming Trump Administration to persuade them to use their power to convince the Israeli Government that these illegal new settlements in the west bank must stop, and the pressure on the Palestinian people in the west bank must stop, because it is fuelling a sense of despair and future extremism?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Lammy]

Eighty years on from the second world war, my hon. Friend is right. He is a dear friend, and I know his constituency well, having spent seven years of my life living in the great city of Peterborough. There is no doubting that when we look back on those 80 years, there are key moments that shook the foundations of the rule of law that men and women in this country fought for. I suspect that people will look back on this war as one of those hugely challenging moments. People who believe in democracy recognise that we are here as parliamentarians in one of the great homes of democracy to fight to keep hope alive. The Palestinian cause is a just cause. The plight of the Jewish people is also a just cause, and a homeland for them I think is right. We have got to achieve that peace. Just as I have for many years campaigned for peace in countries such as Northern Ireland and South Africa, we can get peace in the middle east if we redouble our efforts and the whole of the international community stands true to international humanitarian law.

More than two hours after I started this statement, I am grateful for the opportunity this afternoon.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I thank the Foreign Secretary for a long, two-hour statement.

Royal Assent

Syria

Debate between David Lammy and Caroline Nokes

Monday 9th December 2024 Commons Chamber

[The Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Mr David Lammy)]

With permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will make a statement on Syria. Over less than a fortnight there has been an extraordinary change. What began as an opposition offensive in north-western Syria quickly became a headlong retreat by pro-Assad forces and, over the weekend, the fall of his murderous regime. On 30 November, the regime withdrew from Aleppo; on 5 December, Hama; on 6 December, Daraa and Homs; and on 7 December, Damascus.

As this Government came into office, some in the international community and some in this House asked whether we would re-engage with Assad. His Russian and Iranian allies have long championed him, last year he returned to the Arab League, and increasingly other Governments were also starting to step up their presence in Damascus. This Government choose not to re-engage. We said no because Assad is a monster. We said no because Assad was a dictator whose sole interest was his wealth and his power. We said no because Assad is a criminal who defied all laws and norms to use chemical weapons against the Syrian people. We said no because Assad is a butcher with the blood of countless innocents on his hands. We said no because Assad was a drug dealer, funding his regime through Captagon and illicit finance, and we said no because he was never ever going to change.

There were those who used to call Assad “the lion of Damascus.” Now we see the reality: Assad is the rat of Damascus, fleeing to Moscow with his tail between his legs. How fitting he should end up there. We see streets of Syrians cheering his demise, tearing down his statutes and re-uniting with loved ones who had been disappeared. We have long hoped to see him gone and welcome the opportunity this brings for the people of Syria.

Assad’s demise is not just a humiliation for him and his henchman; it is a humiliation for Russia and Iran. Iran’s so-called axis of resistance is crumbling before our eyes and all Vladimir Putin has got from his attempt to prop up Assad for more than a decade is a fallen dictator filing for asylum in Moscow. He says he wants to return Russia to its imperial glory, but after more than 1,000 days he has not subjugated Ukraine. Putin’s fake empire stops short just a few miles outside Donetsk. I have no fear of it, only disgust.

Of course, our revulsion at Assad, his henchmen and those who propped him up must not blind us to the risks of this moment. Assad’s demise brings no guarantee of peace. This is a moment of danger as well as opportunity for Syrians and for the region. The humanitarian situation in Syria is dire, with almost 17 million people in need. Millions are refugees still, largely in neighbouring Türkiye, Lebanon and Jordan. Seeing so many start to return to Syria is a positive sign of their hopes for a better future now that Assad is gone, but a lot depends on what happens now. This flow into Syria could quickly become a flow back out, which would potentially increase the numbers using dangerous, illegal migration routes to continental Europe and the United Kingdom.

Syria has proven to be a hotbed of extremism. The House will know that the group whose offensive first pushed back the regime, Hayat Tahrir al-Sham—or HTS, as it is now being called—are a proscribed terrorist organisation in the UK as an alias of al-Qaeda. That should rightly make us cautious. Thus far, HTS have offered reassurances to minorities in Aleppo, Hama and Damascus. They have also committed to co-operating with the international community over monitoring chemical weapons. We will judge HTS by their actions, monitoring closely how they and other parties to this conflict treat all civilians in areas they control.

The UK and our allies have spent over a decade combating terrorism in Syria. Daesh remains one of the most significant terrorist threats to the UK, our allies and our interests overseas. We take seriously our duty as a Government to protect the public from this and other terrorist threats.

Amid this uncertainty, the Government have three priorities, first and foremost of which is protecting all civilians, including, of course, minorities. For more than a decade, Syria has been racked by terrible sectarian violence. We continue to do what we can to provide humanitarian support wherever we can. The UK has spent over £4 billion on the Syrian crisis to date. UK-funded mobile medical units already provide emergency services across northern Syria. Last week, we gave a further £300,000 to the White Helmets and today the Prime Minister has announced an additional £11 million of humanitarian support for Syrians.

The second priority is securing an inclusive, negotiated political settlement, as I discussed with the UN special envoy for Syria, Geir Pedersen, yesterday. This is how the Syrian people can begin to chart a path to a united and peaceful Syria.

The final priority is preventing escalation into the wider region. For more than a year, the middle east has been in the grip of a series of interlocking conflicts, which threatened to become an even more catastrophic war; and in Syria itself, Russia and Iran have kept Assad’s regime on life support. If we are to achieve a better future for Syrians, we should let Syrians themselves determine their future.

We must learn another lesson from this crisis, too. Illicit finance was a fundamental part of Assad’s playbook, and it is part of Putin’s playbook and the playbook of dictators and criminals around the world. This hurts ordinary people in our own country and people in Syria. It drives up crime and drives up house prices here in the UK. That is why today I am announcing £36 million in new funding for the National Crime Agency on anti-corruption, a new anti-corruption champion in Margaret Hodge and new sanctions on those using the illicit gold trade. Previous Governments have neglected that fight; for this Government, it is a mission-critical issue.

With events moving so quickly, the Government have been taking every available opportunity to underline our priorities. Today, my right hon. and learned Friend the Prime Minister is in the region visiting the UAE and Saudi Arabia. Over the weekend, I have discussed the situation with my Turkish, Israeli, Emirati and Jordanian counterparts, as well as the UN envoy. The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln (Mr Falconer), has also just come back from the region, having attended the Doha forum and the Manama dialogue. Whatever the coming days bring, I reassure the House that our intense diplomatic engagement will continue.

Assad’s victims can be found all over the world. Many have found sanctuary here in the UK over the years, including film-maker Waad al-Kateab. As she said,

“we have hope to get our country back”.

The UK stands by Syrians like Waad and by Assad’s victims across the world. In the face of uncertainty and new dangers, we will secure the UK against terrorism and illegal migration, while helping Syrians to achieve a better future. I commend this statement to the House.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the shadow Foreign Secretary.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Lammy]

I thank the shadow Foreign Secretary for her remarks. Last week, she was in touch with her concerns about what was taking place, and we were able to correspond. I am grateful for the manner in which we have been able to engage on this very serious issue.

The shadow Foreign Secretary rightly raised the terrible human rights records of Russia and Iran in backing this grim, brutal regime. She is absolutely right that they should be held to account for their actions. She will know that we do not have a diplomatic presence in Syria at this time, and indeed the Syrians do not have a diplomatic presence here in the UK, so recording these actions is not straightforward. However, as she would expect, we continue to work with non-governmental organisations and civil society to support them in their efforts. We will see over the coming days and weeks how they can both record and hold to account those who kept Syria under this brutal regime not just for the last 13 years, but in the years before that under the regime of Assad’s father.

The shadow Foreign Secretary raised Syrian resettlement. Let me say that that is premature. The House has sought on a cross-party basis to support the humanitarian needs of Syrians; indeed, she would have seen that in her previous role in government. We recognise the displacement next door in Lebanon, Jordan, Turkey, Iraq and neighbouring countries, and we will continue to support people in those refugee camps and through the humanitarian aid that we support in-country at this time.

The shadow Foreign Secretary raised the tremendous issues on the ground. We are all rightly concerned about increased terrorism that might engulf the country, which has different sections, communities, minorities and regions—not just HTS, as has been reported in the papers. Against that backdrop, a Cobra has been convened to fully understand these issues across Government. It would not be right to comment on intelligence matters at this time, but she will understand that the Government are active, as she would expect us to be.

The shadow Foreign Secretary is right about the threat not just of terrorism but of illicit drugs. Having just come back from the region, I am sure that she will have heard Gulf allies raise the issue of Captagon and illegal drugs that also propped up Assad’s regime and flooded into Gulf countries. We continue to monitor that. None of us wants Syria to become like Libya next door—fractured and vulnerable to different terrorist groups. We will do all we can. That is why I spoke to the UN envoy yesterday—I will continue to stay in close dialogue with him—and to Jordan, Turkey, the United Arab Emirates and others. The UK will do all it can to support this new representative process that has the people of Syria at its heart. We want the jubilation to continue, and not be replaced by another bloody and brutal regime.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee.

[Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab)]

Across the House we all celebrate the end of this terrible regime, but the very last thing that the Syrian people want, as my right hon. Friend said, is for one tyrant to be replaced by another, but with an Islamic flag. There is another way, but it will not be easy.

I am glad to hear that my right hon. Friend has begun talking to the UN special representative, because Syrians have been working on other plans—other constitutions and laws—over a long period, under the auspices of the United Nations. What is desperately needed now is to ensure that inclusive transitional arrangements are put in place that can take Syria into a brighter world, with the political system that the long-suffering Syrian people need and deserve, to give them an extraordinary, multi-ethnic, multi-background country. I hope that that is our priority and that we do not simply step back and say, “Oh well, what can we do?”

[Mr Lammy]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. We have to ensure that Druze, Alawites, Christians, as well as Sunni and Shi’a Muslims and Kurds, have a place in this vast, ancient and important country, and that civilian life is protected. That is why the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln (Mr Falconer) spoke to representatives of civil society just yesterday, and why I was discussing what happens now. For example, Iran supplied the oil to Syria. Who will supply that oil now? We must find ways in which public officials in Syria can be paid so that they can do that job. Over the coming hours we desperately need to get policing back in Syria, so that there is not widespread disorder. For all of those reasons, my right hon. Friend is right that we must work with civil society and local partners.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Calum Miller (Bicester and Woodstock) (LD)]

I am grateful to the Foreign Secretary for early sight of his statement. The fall of the Assad regime is momentous for the millions of Syrians who have suffered under his brutal rule. The al-Assad dynasty were despots, who used chemical weapons against their own people. The images emerging today from Saydnaya prison illustrate the lengths that the regime took to murder, torture and silence its opponents. What steps are being taken to ensure that both Bashar and his brother Maher al-Assad face justice for the crimes that they have committed?

These developments create immediate strategic challenges for the UK. Will the Foreign Secretary assure the House that the UK is taking urgent action with our allies to identify, locate and secure the stockpiles of chemical weapons in Syria? What assessment can he offer of how this change will impact Russian military capabilities, particularly in respect of its bases at Latakia and Tartus?

There is joy for many liberated Syrians today. This has been a national process of liberation—it is not that of just one group. The international community must learn the lessons of other regime changes and seek to support a process of reconciliation and transition that is led by the Syrian people, and not imposed from outside. Will the Foreign Secretary say in a little more detail how the UK will support an inclusive national process that leads to a fresh constitution, and, in due course, free and fair elections? Will he reassure the House that any recognition of a new Government in Syria will depend on sustained evidence that political, minority and human rights are being protected?

The Foreign Secretary is right that the displacement of civilians from Syria under Assad has deepened the need for humanitarian support in the region. He mentions £11 million in emergency funding, but the drop in humanitarian and other aid to Syria from the UK from 2016 to 2022 was £289 million. Does he therefore agree that there is an urgent need to restore the UK’s aid budget to help displaced people in their home countries, so they have less need to flee overseas?

Assad has fallen. We should act swiftly to support the UK’s strategic interests in the region, and we must do all we can to ensure that what rises in his place represents all the Syrians who yearn to live peacefully, side by side with their neighbours.

[Mr Lammy]

The hon. Gentleman is right to say that Russia and Iran must be held to account for the way they propped up this regime and supported a man who used chemical weapons on his own population. I hope the hon. Gentleman welcomes the further sanctions that I announced, and the appointment of Baroness Hodge to lead across Government on issues of illicit finance. We will, of course, work with others, including the French, on the actions they have brought.

The hon. Gentleman raises, importantly, the issue of stockpiles of chemical weapons. He will have seen that Julani has been clear that he will not use chemical weapons, and that he will work with the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons on that issue, and we will monitor that very closely. Any use of chemical weapons would be grievous, and the international community would have to come together to do all we could to support the Syrian people.

The hon. Gentleman also asks what more can we do. At this point in time, the important thing is to work with the key countries in the region, particularly neighbours and Arab partners, and work closely with our E3 partners and the current and incoming US Governments. That is the key combination to doing all we can to support Syria at this time.

I mentioned the real concerns about disorder and energy supply and oil, and how we support the public sector to move forward in the appropriate manner, ensuring they are paid so that people can do their job. The hon. Gentleman raises the point about aid, and I think we should reflect on something: were the British people and this Parliament, and Parliaments before it, not united in supporting Syria with a record amount of sums—more than any other country in the world—just imagine where Syria would be today, notwithstanding the number of displaced peoples and the challenges that currently exist.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the Chair of the International Development Committee.

[Sarah Champion (Rotherham) (Lab)]

Since 28 November, almost a million Syrians, most of them women and children, have been displaced internally due to the recent violence. More than 7.2 million Syrians are internally displaced and around 6.2 million are long-term refugees, mostly in neighbouring countries. The Foreign Secretary is right to say that Assad’s fall could allow millions of refugees to finally return home, but what comes next could also escalate the country’s displacement crisis. Will he tell us more about what steps he is taking with our partners on the worst-case scenario, and will he commit to continuing, and indeed increasing, our support for host refugee countries, for example, Turkey, Jordan and Lebanon?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Calvin Bailey (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab)]

I thank the Secretary of State for his statement and for the diligent and hard work of his Ministers, in particular the Minister for the middle east, my hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln (Mr Falconer), in keeping the House apprised of the ongoing issues, as he did last week and in the background over prior weeks.

Last week, I urged greater awareness of how the developments in Syria are interconnected, particularly with regard to Russia’s distraction and weakness. We all welcome the Foreign Secretary’s remarks on the escalation of the matter to a Cobra secretariat and the broad coalition we see on the Front Bench, in particular noting the security implications, the Home Office on migration flows, and his Department and the Ministry of Defence’s role in any stabilisation work. Will the Secretary of State provide his view on his Department’s ability to support such a significant piece of stabilisation activity alongside other work, following the disbandment of a Department for which that was the sole role?

As we know, the Russians have used their presence in Syria to expand their brutal security presence in other parts of the world, in particular Africa. What steps are we taking to assess how the developments will impact African states that have learned to rely on Russia for their security? Have we extended our hand of friendship to those states so they have the opportunity to avoid the manifestation of such situations? Finally—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

Order. Members have to keep their questions short.

[Mr Lammy]

I could listen to my hon. Friend all afternoon, but let me set about answering his questions. I am grateful that he mentioned my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary, because it enables me to thank him for the way he is pursuing his role at this time, getting right across the region and the issue and drawing on his own experience.

My hon. Friend the Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Mr Bailey) is right to raise the aid question and how, indeed, that aid is spent. In the context of Syria, sadly, we are talking about a civil society and non-governmental organisations that have been on the ground for many years, so he can draw some confidence from the accountability in the way we work with them. That was, for example, why we have made a further £300,000 available to the White Helmets, which has such a tremendous record. He is also right to talk about Africa and the way in which Russia has used Syria as a staging post for its actions there. Of course, we are making the necessary assessments of that capability now that Russia has retreated.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Lammy]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right to raise the importance of women and youth. Women have been mentioned, but youth not so much this afternoon. I have been aware of youth groups in Syria over many years, and we will do all we can to amplify those voices at this time.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I thank the Foreign Secretary for the statement.

Bill Presented

Domestic Abuse (Aggravated Offences) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)

Josh Babarinde, supported by Caroline Voaden, Alex Brewer, Lisa Smart, Liz Jarvis, Anna Sabine, Calum Miller, Ben Maguire, Alison Bennett, Charlotte Cane, Helen Maguire and Dr Danny Chambers, presented a Bill to create certain domestic abuse aggravated offences; and for connected purposes.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 24 January 2025, and to be printed (Bill 145).

Middle East

Debate between David Lammy and Caroline Nokes

Monday 28th October 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lammy]

I understand the strength of feeling that my dear friend expresses in relation to this matter, and the way that she has championed these issues on behalf of her constituents. The humanitarian situation is dire. As we head to the winter, the prospect of it getting worse is hard to fathom. But I do not agree with her on a full arms embargo, and the reason was exemplified by the attacks from Iran that Israel suffered on 1 October. It would be quite wrong for us not to be prepared to support Israel in theatres of conflict beyond Gaza, notwithstanding our concerns on international humanitarian law. I am afraid I cannot agree with her on that issue.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Calum Miller (Bicester and Woodstock) (LD)]

I thank the Foreign Secretary for advance sight of his statement. He has our full support in his efforts to engage with Iran and Israel to urge an end to the cycle of retaliatory violence. We continue to urge him to proscribe the IRGC. Can he confirm whether UK military assets and personnel played any part in Israel’s attack on Iran on Friday night?

The relationship between Israel and Palestine remains the key to reducing tensions and creating the conditions for peace. We support the Government’s stance on UNRWA, but as the humanitarian situation in northern Gaza continues to deteriorate and the level of violence in the west bank worsens, the Liberal Democrats hope that the Foreign Secretary might go further, offering more than words of condemnation. Following the International Court of Justice’s advisory opinion this summer that the occupation is illegal, does he agree that introducing legislation to cease UK trade with illegal Israeli settlements is a practical way of upholding that judgment? Can he update the House on whether the letter to the Israeli Government, co-signed by the Chancellor, has resulted in a commitment to maintain financial correspondence between Israeli and Palestinian banks?

To signal commitment to a two-state solution, will the Government support the Palestine Statehood (Recognition) (No. 3) Bill tabled last week by my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Layla Moran)? Finally, will the Foreign Secretary tell us what recent update he has had from the Israeli Government on the prospect of the return of the hostages? They have been held in captivity by Hamas for more than a year. I know the whole House will agree that their return remains a priority.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Lammy]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. He will recall that when I suspended sales of arms that could be used in Gaza, the criterion under our regime was a clear risk that there could be a breach of international humanitarian law. When I was looking at the assessments, I kept coming back to humanitarian access as the clear risk, so my hon. Friend is right: we have tremendous concerns about the inability to get aid in, the restrictions that Israel is putting in place, and the man-made starvation that is now coming about as a result.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

That brings that statement to an end. We will take a few moments while the Front Benchers swap over.

I remind Members that if they wish to contribute during a statement or urgent question, they need to be in the Chamber for the opening statement.

British Indian Ocean Territory: Negotiations

Debate between David Lammy and Caroline Nokes

Monday 7th October 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lammy]

It takes some brass neck to criticise this Government for delivering what the last Government tried and failed to do. It was the last Government that opened these negotiations in the first place, because they understood what was at risk. They went through 11 rounds of negotiations and resolved nothing. Instead, as with much that we found across Government, they left it for us to inherit and to fix.

The shadow Foreign Secretary prays in aid the previous Foreign Secretary and the right hon. Member for Braintree (Mr Cleverly), who is now auditioning for the Tory leadership. The right hon. Member for Braintree seems to have suffered short-term memory loss in the past few years, because he told the Commons that, in negotiations with Mauritius,

“Our primary objective is to ensure the continued effective operation of our defence facility on Diego Garcia.”—[Official Report, 13 June 2023; Vol. 734, c. 151.]

That is exactly what we delivered. Do not take my word for it: ask President Biden, Secretary Blinken or Secretary Austin. If this can win the approval of the White House and the Pentagon on the protection of security interests, I think the shadow Foreign Secretary can rest easy and put down some of the bombast.

The reality is that those who do not support the agreement support either abandoning the base or breaking international law. I ask the right hon. Gentleman: which is it? Our agreement secures the base, stops a potentially dangerous illegal migration route, protects the marine areas, provides new support for the Chagossians and ensures that the UK is compliant with international law. There was a time when the Tories believed in international law; they now seem to have given up, and are telling other people basically to go ahead and break it.

The right hon. Gentleman knows that this was a serious negotiation, which the last Government began and left to us to conclude. It secures the future of an important security asset in the Indian ocean. The Conservatives posture; we lead. Parliament will, of course, get the scrutiny that it deserves in the coming months. He knows, too, that this was a negotiation between two Governments, and of course we kept the Chagossians informed all along the way.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee.

[Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab)]

In a parallel reality, may I ask the Foreign Secretary about a particular aspect of the treaty that I do not believe will get a great deal of attention in all the heat and fury, but that is very important? At a time when our oceans have never been under such stress, the British Indian Ocean Territory is one of the last ocean wildernesses in the world, and tuna trawlers are lining up on the boundary of the no-take zone, trying to entice fish across into their nets. Artisanal fishing by Chagossians who have come home is quite possible in this ecosystem, but licensed fishing is not, and any break in environmental protection will lead to a huge spike in illegal fishing. Will the Foreign Security inform the House what provision has been made to ensure the ongoing protection of this unique part of the world once the administration of the islands is handed over to Mauritius, and what involvement the Chagossians have had in that process?

[Mr Lammy]

I reassure my right hon. Friend that we will of course do everything we can, and have done everything we can—including combating illegal fishing—to better secure the environment. A new marine protected area will be established and managed as part of the deal. We will continue to work with the Mauritians on that marine protected area, and the United States will play its part as well. I am grateful for the question.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

Windrush Compensation Scheme

Debate between David Lammy and Caroline Nokes

Tuesday 9th April 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr David Lammy (Tottenham) (Lab)]

(Urgent Question): To ask the Home Secretary if he will make a statement on the Windrush compensation scheme.

[The Minister for Immigration (Caroline Nokes)]

Righting the wrongs done to the Windrush generation has been at the forefront of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary’s priorities. Last week, on 3 April, she made a statement to this House setting out the detail of the compensation scheme and announcing that it is now open to claims.

The Government deeply regret what has happened to some members of the Windrush generation and the launch of the compensation scheme marks a key milestone in righting the wrongs they have experienced. The scheme will provide payments to eligible individuals who did not have the right documentation to prove their status in the UK and suffered adverse effects on their life as a result. These could range from a loss of employment or access to housing, education or NHS healthcare, to emotional distress or a deterioration in mental and physical health.

Information on the scheme is now available. The claim forms and guidance notes can be found on the gov.uk website or requested from the freephone helpline. The scheme rules and caseworker guidance were also published online on 3 April. The helpline is already receiving calls and claim forms are being sent out. The Home Office has also started a series of engagement events. The first event was held in Brixton last Friday and the next event is scheduled for Southampton this Friday.

In due course, we will publish information on the scheme through our existing monthly reports to the Home Affairs Committee, including information on the number of claims submitted, the number of claims paid and the overall amount paid out by the scheme.

[Mr Lammy]

I should not need to remind anyone in this House that the Windrush scandal is a national disgrace. At least 11 people who were wrongly deported from the UK by their own Government have died. At least 164 British citizens were wrongly deported or detained. Home Office officials have told the media that 15,000 individuals may have been harmed by the contempt that their Department showed.

Last week, one year since the scandal broke, the Home Secretary finally announced the compensation scheme, to begin the process of reconciliation for the Government’s grievous errors. The Home Secretary apologised again, on behalf of the Government, for the failings and repeated his promise to do right by the Windrush generation. Crucially, he told members of this House:

“There is no cap on the scheme”

and

“it will be based on people’s needs”.—[Official Report, 3 April 2019; Vol. 657, c. 1048.]

His words seem to have provided false reassurance.

In the response to the Windrush compensation scheme document that the Home Secretary brought to this House, there was no detail of caps. Instead, that was quietly published online in a separate compensation scheme rules document, slipped out later on 3 April. MPs therefore had no chance to scrutinise or question the truth that his Department had set out incredibly strict caps to be awarded for different losses—a £500 payment for legal costs incurred; £500 for people who had been denied the chance to go to university; £1,000 for those wrongly obliged to leave the country under a so-called voluntary return scheme; and a mere £10,000 for people who were wrongly deported. Victims have correctly described these payments as “peanuts” and “insultingly low”.

I say to the Minister: £10,000 is less than one Secretary of State’s gross salary per month. Is that all that a person will have lost if they have been locked up, if they have been deported, if they have been made homeless, because £10,000 is all that they would get from her Department? Is this all it costs someone to be denied access to their family and friends for years or decades—to their own country? Is this the price that you put on my constituents being deported for no wrongdoing and nothing that they have themselves done? Is this how this Government value the lives of black Britons? I say to the Minister: you promised to do right by the Windrush generation, but quite rightly many of them think that they have been misled.

Let this be the final betrayal of the Windrush generation. Scrap the caps, and compensate them properly for the wrongs that have been done to them.

[Caroline Nokes]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his question. He is of course right to emphasise how important it is that we right these wrongs. I would like to give some further explanation. It is important to reflect that while we have worked very closely with Martin Forde to establish both the tariff-based scheme and actuals, so where people could evidence specific losses, they would be reimbursed for those losses, actually these different heads of claim, which can be claimed for, need not be in the singular but can be cumulative. There is also a discretionary category, which will enable people to claim for other losses, not necessarily identified within the scheme, which is uncapped. [Interruption.] The detail is provided in the scheme online, but it is important to reflect that while there is a tariff set at £10,000 for somebody who was wrongly deported, of course that could be in conjunction with other parts of the claim, which could add up to significant sums in addition to that.

Immigration: Pausing the Hostile Environment

Debate between David Lammy and Caroline Nokes

Thursday 12th July 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

One is supposed to read out the precise terms of the question, but the right hon. Gentleman indulged in a degree of poetic licence before I had the chance to stop him. Very good.

[The Minister for Immigration (Caroline Nokes)]

I welcome the opportunity to respond to this question, and I want to make our position very clear. We have put in place additional safeguards to ensure that legal migrants are not inadvertently caught up by measures designed to tackle illegal migration. It is right that we make a clear distinction between those who are here legally and those who are not. We have made it clear that it is not acceptable that those of the Windrush generation have been impacted negatively, and this Government have apologised.

We are keeping under constant review the safeguards that were immediately put in place. We have introduced a temporary pause in the proactive sharing of Home Office data with other organisations, including banks and building societies, for the purpose of controlling access to services. Data on persons over 30 has been excluded from sharing, to ensure that members of the Windrush generation are not inadvertently affected. This is a temporary measure. We are also providing additional support to landlords, employers and public service providers through the Home Office checking service to ensure that we are not impacting the Windrush generation. We have issued new guidance that encourages employers and landlords to get in touch with the Home Office checking service if a Commonwealth citizen does not have the documents they need to demonstrate their status. We have issued similar guidance to other Government Departments providing public services.

The Home Secretary has said that it is his top priority to right the wrongs that have occurred. A lessons learned review, which will have independent oversight, will help to ensure that we have a clear picture of what went wrong and of how we should take this forward. We are carrying out a historical review of removals and detentions. At the same time, our taskforce is helping to ensure that those who have struggled to demonstrate their right to be here are supported to do so, and we have committed to setting up a compensation scheme.

[Mr Lammy]

It is important to put on record the fact that immigration has brought considerable benefits to this country. We saw last night in England’s World Cup team 11 of the players from black or mixed-race heritage backgrounds. That is a tribute to the modern diversity of this country. When the Secretary of State took up his position a few weeks ago, he said that he wanted a decent system, a fair system and a system that treated people with respect. Is it respectful to slip out this information during yesterday’s World Cup spectacle? Is it respectful for the Minister’s Department still not to be able to tell us how many people have been detained? Is it respectful not to have any information about a transparent hardship scheme for those who are still in trouble? Is it respectful to have said nothing about whether the Minister is going to allow for a proper appeals system?

Will the Minister confirm that these changes are not just for the Windrush generation and that they are in fact for everyone who has been affected by the hostile environment? She talks about a “pause”, but why not scrap the hostile environment that is bringing this country into disrepute? Will she also confirm that we will no longer be asking teachers, nurses, doctors and landlords to act as the country’s border enforcement in the months and years ahead?

[Caroline Nokes]

The right hon. Gentleman has raised a number of important points. First, I want to make it clear that it was the former Home Secretary who requested the pausing of proactive data sharing with other Government Departments, and that that started in April. That is a temporary measure. However, the data sharing cannot be recommenced without my ministerial consent, and it is certainly not something that we will begin again until we are confident that we will not be impacting members of the Windrush generation further.

The right hon. Gentleman mentioned hardship, and of course our first priority has been to help people to secure their status through the taskforce. We have put in place a dedicated team for vulnerable people, whom we are linking up with other public sector bodies to ensure that they get the support they need. I chaired a cross-ministerial group early on in all this, and I was impressed by the steps that the Department for Work and Pensions in particular had taken to ensure that those affected would be able to have their benefits reinstated, indeed retrospectively, from the moment that they demonstrated that they had an appointment with the Windrush taskforce.

When conducting our review of those who may have been detained, it is important that we are meticulous. It would be wrong to come out with a number that we were not confident about and we will ensure that, as soon as we have figures that we are content are accurate, which will go through the same independent assurance process that we used for removals, they will be made available to the House.

The taskforce’s first priority is to ensure that those who are assisted achieve status, and that has happened in the vast majority of cases. Those over whom some question remains will have access to an administrative review and, in due course, could proceed to a judicial review if that were appropriate. Obviously, we do not want it to come to that.

As I have said previously and as the Home Secretary has made clear, we have sought to ensure that mitigations are in place for the measures that are within the compliant environment that have impacted the Windrush generation. As I said earlier, we have paused proactive data sharing for all nationalities for people over 30. However, it is important to reflect that compliant environment policies commenced a significant time ago under a previous Labour Administration, and it is also important that this Government have ways of identifying those who are actively accessing services in this country to which they are not entitled.

Minors Entering the UK: 1948 to 1971

Debate between David Lammy and Caroline Nokes

Monday 30th April 2018 Westminster Hall

[Caroline Nokes]

The hon. Lady is absolutely right to talk about trust, which is why I take her comment on the chin. We have a duty to rebuild that trust, and I am determined that we must do so through demonstration and through action, and through an assurance from me and those working on the taskforce that no case will be passed to immigration enforcement. When somebody contacts that helpline, we have absolutely undertaken that none of those details will be passed on to immigration enforcement.

[Mr Lammy]

The Minister will recognise that the Government still say that there is a burden of proof, although they have lowered it. If there were Windrush generation or Commonwealth people who contacted the Home Office who did not meet that burden, so did not get their status, would they be subject to enforcement? That fear is very real.

[Caroline Nokes]

The right hon. Gentleman raises an important question. I give that assurance. People may well come forward who cannot not produce the proof. It is imperative, if we are to build trust, that we say, “We will not pass those details to immigration enforcement.” The message has to be what I saw on Saturday: we want to be able to help people to build their own story. We want to be able to use whatever disparate pieces of information they may have. A gentleman came to Croydon on Saturday morning who could produce his City & Guilds qualification in horticulture, I believe. That one certificate was pretty much the only evidence that he had of where he had been at school. We have to listen to people and use our own records.

--- Later in debate ---

[Caroline Nokes]

Unfortunately, the right hon. Gentleman takes me away from the contributions that have been made and towards the—I do not know how to describe it—somewhat drier technical detail provided to me by officials. I am happy to move on to that, but I would like first to respond to the points made by Members who have been here for the whole debate.

I have addressed some important points about settled status for EU citizens and the responsibility for getting that right, but I would like to highlight the history lesson and information provided by my hon. Friend the Member for Worthing West (Sir Peter Bottomley). He painted a picture of how the Government can use evidence that is already at our disposal. That is really important. We can share data with the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency, the Department of Health and Social Care, the Department for Work and Pensions, Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs—the list is long. That is exactly what the taskforce is doing. We are trying to lift the burden from individuals and place it on ourselves so that we provide the information and ensure we get it right.

The hon. Member for Wolverhampton North East (Emma Reynolds) rightly started by thanking all those from the Windrush generation who have contributed so much. She raised difficult and important questions for me about how we stop this happening again, and she was absolutely right to do so. We have to stop it happening again. We have to ensure that the same cannot happen to future cohorts.

My hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Leo Docherty) mentioned the Gurkhas—that Nepalese community —who are so numerous at their base in Hampshire, and we must be mindful the whole while that other communities may well be impacted. I have indicated time and again that uppermost in my mind is the truly enormous number of people from the European Union—3.3 million—who are already here. I do not underestimate the scale of that task.

The hon. Member for Wolverhampton North East asked how we can right the wrong done to her constituent, Paulette Wilson. Mrs Wilson absolutely deserves a personal apology. I am not sure that me saying sorry today is adequate. If the hon. Lady would like me to do so, I would be very happy to meet Mrs Wilson. Every one of us was struck by the severe and cruel injustice that was done to her.

The hon. Lady and the Opposition spokesman raised questions about how many people have been affected, how many have been detained and how many may have been subjected to letters asking them to leave the country voluntarily, or potentially even to removal. We are trawling through the Home Office computer system—the caseworker information database, which goes back to 2002—and scrutinising cases very carefully, using both date of birth and nationality information to verify that, as one might expect. I do not wish to get into numbers until I can be confident that they are correct. We have an absolute duty to ensure that we get that right. To date, we have not found any single individual who has been removed from the country wrongly. However, I wish to ensure that we get it right.

[Mr Lammy]

rose—

[Catherine West]

rose—

[Caroline Nokes]

Everybody is leaping to their feet. I will take a final intervention from the right hon. Gentleman, but I have to crack on a bit.

[Mr Lammy]

There is an important group of people who may not have been removed but who are watching and listening to this debate and communicating with their families in this country. That is the group of people who went back to the Caribbean, most often to attend a funeral, and were not allowed to come back to this country. It is very important that those people have access to the hotline and to compensation—many of them lost their jobs and are still there—and that they are properly tracked and attended to.

[Caroline Nokes]

The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to point those people out, and I am very conscious—

--- Later in debate ---

[Caroline Nokes]

The right hon. Lady has asked a specific question about bonuses, and I have said on the record I am not aware of any such system of bonuses. However, I will undertake to go away and find out, prior to Wednesday’s debate, when I look forward to being able to go over this issue in more detail, with more time, in the main Chamber.

I know, as everyone here and—I believe—everyone in this House knows, that we regard the Windrush generation as being of us and part of us. I believe the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green referred to them as being “part of the furniture”. We regard them as British, but we need to ensure that they have the legal documentation confirming that. Nationality law is incredibly complicated, and I want to ensure that their legal status is cemented as soon as possible. We have made it clear that we wish the process to be simple and that nobody should have to undergo a life in the UK test or attend a citizenship ceremony unless they wish to. Some may, and we would want to make that available to them.

Of course, some may not wish to be British citizens at all. We respect that position, but we still need to confirm their status here—free of charge—as someone able to remain in the UK and access services. This point was made earlier: there will also be people in the Windrush generation who, having worked all their lives in Britain, have retired to the country of their birth but obviously retain strong ties here. We should respect and nurture those ties. Should they wish to come back, we will allow that.

I sympathise with anyone who has found the process difficult, and I would like to assure hon. Members that we are doing everything we can to ensure that it is as smooth as possible. I am pleased that more than 100 people have now been issued with the documentation they sought, but please be assured that I am in no way complacent about that. We will continue to improve the service provided.

[Mr Lammy]

There is another important point. The Minister will understand that some important Caribbean countries—St Kitts, Antigua, St Lucia and others—got their independence after 1973, and a bunch of people are concerned about the 1973 cut-off. Will she say a little more about the situation for those people, some of whom may have come to this country as British subjects from countries whose independence did not come until later in the 1970s or early 1980s? Antigua’s was as late as 1981.

[Caroline Nokes]

Of course, my right hon. Friend the previous Home Secretary addressed how we solve the status and situation of those who may have come here between 1973 and 1988. I am aware of this issue, and, going forward, I want to ensure that we have a comprehensive package for those whom I am going to regard as the Windrush children, of whom there are very, very many.

As I have said, I was in Sheffield and Croydon over the weekend, listening to the calls being made and the quality of the conversations going on—they were conversations; they were in no way interrogative. In our process, we have a script that is evolving over time. At the end of every day, the script changes and the lessons that have been learned from those conversations during the day are used to ensure that things are better going forward. It is an evolving, iterative process.

I think I have addressed most of the questions raised. If important aspects have been raised that I have not addressed, I will make them very clear to the House on Wednesday. We are working hard to resolve the situation. The new Home Secretary has made his position, personal investment and commitment very clear, and we are working to ensure that it cannot happen again.

As we have heard, this year is the 70th anniversary of the Empire Windrush arriving at Tilbury docks, which makes the situation all the more poignant and tragic. The Government will be celebrating Windrush day, and in the next few days I will have the opportunity to speak to the new Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government about how we can use that occasion to build trust with those we have let down. It is not lost on me that our new Home Secretary has come to the Home Office from the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, and, of course, he introduced the paper on integration, which is so important going forward. He has a strong ally in the new Secretary of State in his old Department, which I am sure will provide a strong link.

I reassure right hon. and hon. Members that the Government are committed to righting the wrongs for the Windrush generation, to ensuring that those who have the right to be here in the United Kingdom are never treated in such a way again and to restoring trust in the Home Office to deliver the outcome that people deserve. I am proud of the work that has been done over the past fortnight to set us on the right course, and I look forward to working with colleagues and officials in the coming months to accomplish those aims.

Yarl’s Wood Detention Centre

Debate between David Lammy and Caroline Nokes

Tuesday 6th March 2018 Commons Chamber

[Caroline Nokes]

I said very clearly that I was not going to comment on individual cases, but we do follow due process very closely indeed. I put on record my thanks to the hon. Gentleman’s colleague, the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Ruth Smeeth), to whom I spoke over the weekend and with whom I am in regular contact. It is quite right that she should be able to make those representations to me at, quite frankly, whatever time of day.

[Mr David Lammy (Tottenham) (Lab)]

I am very proud to be the son of immigrants and proud of this country’s record on supporting refugees and immigrants. Does the Minister understand that at the heart of her answer is an indifference, first, to indefinite detention and, secondly, to the fact that many women at Yarl’s Wood have been there for months and months, running into years? That is why many of them are refusing food. The possibility that the Government will accelerate deportation on that basis must be contrary to human rights. Can she satisfy the House that this satisfies all the obligations that the Government have to meet in their human rights record and that it is not cruel and unusual punishment?

[Caroline Nokes]

It is important to reflect on the fact that detention plays an important part in our immigration system and will continue to do so. Of course we put the welfare and wellbeing of individuals who are in detention at Yarl’s Wood, and at every other centre in this country, at the forefront of our policies. It is important to remember, however, that some people in detention, including foreign national offenders, are there because if they were in the community they would have very high potential to do harm.