Syria

Debate between David Lammy and Kim Johnson

Monday 9th December 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lammy]

We are in the early days of a fluid situation, so it is not for me to give the right hon. Gentleman the assurances that he seeks, except to say that of course I continue to talk to our closest allies in the region about their security concerns and the issues facing Syria. In relation to the conversation that I had with the Israeli Foreign Minister, there is an arrangement in place—it was put in place in 1970s. It has worked and has sustained an arrangement in the Golan heights. The Israelis’ assessment was that the withdrawal of the regime over the past few days—and the potential for chaos, which has been discussed in this House and was indicated in the right hon. Gentleman’s question—has required them to protect that buffer zone. As I have said, I hope that that situation is temporary.

[Kim Johnson (Liverpool Riverside) (Lab)]

As we have just heard, Israel seized more territory in the Syrian-controlled Golan heights yesterday. The Foreign Secretary just mentioned that Israel said that would be temporary, but the occupation is recognised as illegal under international law, so what will happen if the Israelis decide that it is not temporary?

Middle East Update

Debate between David Lammy and Kim Johnson

Monday 2nd September 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lammy]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady. I have now personally spoken to or met all the families of British and UK-linked hostages and have heard for myself the suffering that they have endured since their loved ones were taken on 7 October. There needs to be an end to this nightmare. I see the tremendous grief, pain and trauma whenever I visit Israel and meet hostages’ families, as I have continued to do.

The hon. Lady is right to raise the issues on the west bank. We are deeply concerned about the ongoing IDF military operation in the occupied west bank and the attacks from Palestinian militants. We recognise, of course, Israel’s need to defend itself against security threats, but we are deeply worried about the methods that Israel has employed and by reports of civilian casualties and the destruction of civilian infrastructure in particular. It is in no one’s interest for further conflict and instability to spread to the west bank. We condemn the settler expansion—particularly the record levels this year—and the increase in settler violence. I condemn the language that has been used by Ministers in the Israeli Government—Smotrich and Ben Gvir—in relation to that in particular. It is entirely unacceptable language, and should be condemned by the Israeli Government as a whole.

The hon. Lady has raised important issues. Of course, she will recognise that we label goods from settlements based on the 1967 borders, but the issues are very complex.

[Kim Johnson (Liverpool Riverside) (Lab)]

The escalation of military violence in the west bank has led to the reported deaths of Palestinians and increased settler violence, resulting in illegal occupation and violent land theft. Amid this escalation, the US has imposed sanctions on Israeli groups. Medical Aid for Palestinians has claimed that the UK Government have not acted with due urgency, so can the Foreign Secretary clarify the Government’s position on this issue and what immediate actions they will be taking, other than condemnation of this action?

[Mr Lammy]

I reassure my hon. Friend that we are keeping this issue under review. We are in dialogue with our closest allies on this issue, and we will not flinch from dealing with the issues at hand if we need to.

Lebanon

Debate between David Lammy and Kim Johnson

Tuesday 30th July 2024 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call Kim Johnson.

[Kim Johnson (Liverpool Riverside) (Lab)]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and congratulations on your appointment.

I am sure my right hon. Friend agrees that the escalation of violence can be reduced if we look at ending the suffering in Gaza. At a briefing that I attended today with Oxfam and Medical Aid for Palestinians, they talked about how Israel was using water as a weapon of war. People have 4.7 litres of water per day to wash, clean and cook. That is less than a toilet flush. I welcome the position that we have taken—we have moved greatly—but does my right hon. Friend agree that we need to go much further and much faster?

[Mr Lammy]

My hon. Friend is right to raise the issue of water. We have waterborne disease—we now have polio setting in—and of course we have had the famine. The lack of desalination is a very serious issue. That is why it was important to take the decision, in our first days in office, to restore aid to UNRWA, to increase the funds available to UK-Med and to do more to open up field medical sites across Gaza. We will continue to press the aid issue in Gaza. I think it is also important that the Rafah crossing be opened, which would alleviate a lot of suffering.

Judicial Review and Courts Bill

Debate between David Lammy and Kim Johnson

2nd reading
Tuesday 26th October 2021 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lammy]

According to the devolved settlement, that must be the case. Perhaps the Secretary of State or the Minister will address that.

“Judicial review is a cornerstone of British democracy. It empowers everyday people to challenge decisions made by public bodies. Whether it be central government or local authorities, rule makers are held accountable by ordinary people. This is a small, but important, check on the balance of powers in our democracy.”

Those are not my words but the words of the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis), who I see in his place. He has described the reforms as “un-Conservative” and

“an obvious attempt to avoid accountability.”

I will let that hang in the air of the House of Commons.

There is no legitimate need to meddle with judicial review, least of all when there are so many other pressing issues to deal with. What message does it send to the victims of serious crime in a time of crisis that the Government’s first objective is to weaken quashing orders —one of the tools available when a court finds that a public body or the Government have acted unlawfully?

[Kim Johnson (Liverpool, Riverside) (Lab)]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the collapse of the Hillsborough trial identified flaws in our legal system and caused untold trauma to the families of the 97? Will he join me in urging the Government to bring the Bill back with amendments to include automatic non-means-tested public funding for bereaved families when public functions are involved?

[Mr Lammy]

My hon. Friend rightly raises the Hillsborough families, and she knows that, just like the Grenfell families, they have relied on judicial review. She raises that in relation to legal aid and will know that I have made such a commitment at the Dispatch Box. We will wait to see whether the Government will meet us with that important pledge on behalf of any individual facing tragedies of that sort.

The Bill seeks to make profound changes to how quashing orders work and, crucially, to what redress victims of unlawful decisions can receive from the courts. Clause 1 creates new powers for courts to remove or limit the retrospective effect of a quashing order. It will also create a presumption that a judge issuing a quashing order should make it suspended or prospective only. The effect of that would be for courts to have less power to provide redress or to compensate those affected by past uses of the unlawful decision.

On the face of it, that might seem to be quite a small change to judicial review, but the effects would be profound and chilling. The Government’s own consultation paper even conceded that a prospective-only quashing order would

“impose injustice and unfairness on those who have reasonably relied on its validity in the past.”

Let us look at how that would work in practice. When the Supreme Court quashed the employment tribunal fees in 2017, the effect of its declaration was that fees were identified as being unlawful from the start. Thousands of workers unlawfully denied access to justice therefore had their tribunal fees refunded. Had a prospective-only order been made, they would have been left out of pocket, despite the fees being ruled unlawful. How can that possibly be right? What would be the point of bringing a claim for judicial review, if people knew before they even started that they would be no better off? What is the purpose of judicial review if it cannot hold public bodies rightfully to account?

That is just the tip of the iceberg. As more people are left without the redress they deserve, many more will be put off bringing their own claim, even if those were perfectly valid. As a result, unlawful decisions made by the Government—by any Government, of any colour or stripe—or a public body will go unchallenged. Perhaps, however, that is what the Government want, and the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden certainly seems to think so, when he argues that the Bill is simply a way for them to dodge being held accountable. We all know that the ability of members of the public to challenge public bodies is vital to maintain a country built on good governance.