Middle East

Debate between David Lammy and Yasmin Qureshi

Thursday 16th January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lammy]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for bringing the experience of his constituency to bear. We have a family of constituencies in north London where a candle has been lit for the hostages every single Friday, including in the Stamford Hill area of my constituency, which he knows is one of the historical homes of the Jewish community, many having migrated to Borehamwood and Hertfordshire over the years.

The right hon. Gentleman is also right to mention the importance of the Gulf states. They can do so much for the reconstruction and rebuilding of Gaza. They can do so much to support a rehabilitated and reformed Palestinian Authority. They can do so much to support the monitoring and security arrangements that will need to be put in place if Israel is to be assured that it can withdraw and that Hamas will not attack again.

We should remember the rocket fire that Israel has experienced over many, many years, including, of course, the attack on 7 October. There is a key role for the Gulf states, but they will not take up that role unless there is renewed and continued negotiation beyond phase 1, which begins in 16 days’ time. They will need a political horizon, too.

[Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South and Walkden) (Lab)]

I welcome the ceasefire, after 15 months of relentless bombing of hospitals, schools, refugee camps, and women and children. For the ceasefire to last, it is important that Israel is compelled to recognise that Palestinians have a right to freedom, justice and self-determination.

What steps are being taken to thicken the thin layer of ice on which this ceasefire agreement is skating? Will the Foreign Secretary tell us what steps are being taken to negotiate a two-state solution, which goes to the heart and root cause of this problem, and to ensure that East Jerusalem is the capital of Palestine?

[Several hon. Members rose—]

Judicial Review and Courts Bill

Debate between David Lammy and Yasmin Qureshi

2nd reading
Tuesday 26th October 2021 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lammy]

That is one reflection among many who sit on the other side of the debate, including those who have looked into this matter in great detail.

Why are the Government still pushing ahead with this reform? If we accept the Secretary of State’s reasoning, it comes down to cost and

“a disproportionate use of valuable judicial resource”.

In reality, however, the cost of Cart reviews is no more than £400,000 a year. That is a drop in the ocean compared with the Ministry of Justice’s overall budget. It is less than the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport spent on its art collection last year. Put another way, the Government Legal Department’s total administrative costs for the last year were £226.7 million, more than 500 times the upper estimate for yearly Cart judicial review costs.

As with clause 1, there could be another, murkier reason that the Government are so keen to abolish Cart judicial reviews. In its press release, the Ministry of Justice said that

“it is expected that the legal text that removes the Cart judgment will serve as a framework that can be replicated in other legislation.”

With those words, the Government let their mask slip. If that is indeed their intention—I look forward to the Lord Chancellor confirming that it is not—that would allow them to insulate whole sections of Government decision making from challenge by members of the public. I am sure that Members on both sides of the House would agree that that would be a truly chilling development. Governments have to be challenged. Governments suffer defeats in the courts. Why would we start to oust Government decisions in other areas, beyond this small but important area of immigration law?

Beyond judicial review, there are several provisions dealing with a shift towards greater use of online procedures and technology. While Labour supports measures that would make the justice system more efficient, we must ensure that no one is left behind and that adequate safeguards are in place to prevent serious injustices. As the Bill currently stands, there is only a vague duty for the Lord Chancellor to provide digital support

“for those who require it”.

Labour feels that a specific commitment to assist digitally excluded individuals would offer better protection. While the creation of an online procedure rule committee is a positive step, the Bill currently puts too much power in the hands of the Lord Chancellor. As it stands, the Lord Chancellor could amend, repeal or revoke any law he feels necessary to create the online procedure rules, and he would only have to consult the Lord Chief Justice and the Senior President of Tribunals before making amendments to them.

The last area I want to address is the coroners court. As with provisions on criminal procedure, any efforts to reduce “unnecessary procedures” or allow for greater online participation must be accompanied with robust protections for those who could be excluded. More fundamentally, there is nothing in the Bill to address the inequality in the inquest system that sees bereaved families denied the legal aid that my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Vicky Foxcroft) mentioned earlier, while the state has the benefit of the finest Government lawyers that taxpayers’ money can buy.

[Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South East) (Lab)]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that hospital authorities can hire Queen’s Counsel and spend millions of pounds on defending themselves, yet lone individuals cannot even get legal aid following the death of their immediate family? How disgusting is that?

[Mr Lammy]

It goes to the fundamental principle in our justice system of trying to have equality of arms. That is why the Bill is of so much concern.