British Indian Ocean Territory: Negotiations

Debate between Edward Leigh and David Lammy

Monday 7th October 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lammy]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising a serious issue. On the signing of that treaty that is now a matter for Mauritius, and she is right to highlight that important issue in terms of our own national security.

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

I do not know how many people in the Chamber have visited these islands, but I went there with the Defence Committee 38 years ago. It was crucial in our whole effort in the cold war against the Soviet Union. We never appeased once in that cold war, and we won it. The question I want to ask—it is a serious question—is this: given that Mauritius has a close relationship with China, and given that we cannot trust a single word the Chinese say with our experience on Hong Kong, and given that they are militarising islands all over the Pacific, are we absolutely sure that sometime in the future the Chinese will not exert pressure on the Mauritian Government to have a base on these islands?

[Mr Lammy]

I have to say that such a senior Member of the House of Commons should just check his facts a little bit more closely. Mauritius is one of only two countries in Africa that has not participated in China’s belt and road. Mauritius is an ally of India, not China.

Israel and Gaza

Debate between Edward Leigh and David Lammy

Friday 19th July 2024 Commons Chamber

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

With permission, Mr Speaker, I shall make a statement on the middle east. I was very disappointed to miss yesterday’s foreign affairs debate due to the European Political Community summit, and I welcome this early opportunity to come to the House.

Last weekend, I visited Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories, meeting leaders on both sides. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has also spoken to both Prime Minister Netanyahu and President Abbas, and I have discussed the issue with colleagues from the G7 and, of course, the region. This has been a priority from day one because of the desperate situation in Gaza, and the serious risk of escalation in Lebanon in particular. I must be frank: Britain wants an immediate ceasefire. The fighting must stop. The hostages must be released. Much, much more aid must enter Gaza—Israel promised a “flood of aid” back in April, but imposes impossible and unacceptable restrictions—and there must be de-escalation on the Israeli-Lebanese border. I sincerely hope the parties will agree a ceasefire as a matter of urgency.

I have been discussing with partners the need for planning for what follows, on reconstruction, governance and security, and for reforming and empowering the Palestinian Authority, but President Biden presented his proposals nearly two months ago, so we in this new Government have not sought to cloak our position in qualifications or conditions. This horror must end now.

My visit brought home the conflict’s appalling impact. I met the families of those murdered and taken hostage so cruelly by Hamas, now separated from their loved ones for so long. I told them that the UK would continue to push for the immediate release of all hostages. I also met Palestinians displaced by settlers. Settlement expansion and settler violence have reached record levels. The Israeli Government have seized more of the west bank in 2024 than in the past 20 years. That is completely unacceptable. This Government will challenge those who undermine a two-state solution.

Finally, I met aid workers from the United Nations agencies operating in Gaza. More aid workers have been killed in Gaza than in every other conflict globally combined this year. Those who risk their life to save others are heroes. With journalists banned from entering, aid agencies are a vital source of information from the Gaza strip, and their reports are devastating: almost 40,000 killed, mothers so malnourished that they cannot produce milk for their babies, rivers of sewage in the streets, a surge in disease among children—with 40 times the normal rate of diarrhoea, and with polio now detected—and looting; one aid truck driver was killed only yesterday. I announced on my visit new funding for field hospitals run by UK-Med, which has treated more than 60,000 Gazans since the conflict began.

Humanitarian aid is a moral necessity in the face of such a catastrophe, and it is aid agencies that ensure that UK support reaches civilians on the ground. UNRWA is absolutely central to those efforts; no other agency can deliver aid on the scale needed. It is already feeding over half of Gaza’s population. It will be vital for future reconstruction, and it provides critical services to Palestinian refugees in the region. I was appalled by the allegations that UNRWA staff were involved in the 7 October attacks, but the UN took those allegations seriously. I have spoken to UN Secretary-General Guterres and Commissioner-General Lazzarini. Following Catherine Colonna’s independent review, we are reassured that UNRWA is ensuring that it meets the highest standards of neutrality and is strengthening its procedures, including on vetting.

UNRWA has acted. Partners such as Japan, the European Union and Norway have also now acted, and this Government will act too. I can confirm to the House that we are overturning the suspension of UNRWA funding. Britain will provide £21 million in new funds, with some directed at supporting the management reforms recommended by the Colonna review. UNRWA supports more than 5.5 million Palestinians, and almost 200 of its staff have died in this conflict. I thank the agency for its lifesaving work.

As we look for a pathway out of the wider crisis, I am conscious of this conflict’s complexities and am determined to listen to all sides. I approach every decision I must take carefully. Our overarching goal is clear: a viable and sovereign Palestinian state, alongside a safe and secure Israel. There is no way out of this crisis without a route to both Palestinians and Israelis enjoying security, justice and opportunity in lands that they can call their own. We are committed to playing a full diplomatic role in a renewed peace process, and to contributing to that process by recognising a Palestinian state at a time determined by us, not anyone else.

I know that other aspects of this crisis are of great interest to the House, including the Government’s assessment of Israel’s compliance with international humanitarian law in Gaza, the investigation by the International Criminal Court, and what further measures might help to deter malign activity by the Iranian regime. Let me reassure the House that I take those issues extremely seriously. Our commitment to international law is clear, and we are following the necessary processes. As soon as I took office, I tasked officials with a comprehensive review of Israel’s compliance with international humanitarian law, and that process is now under way. I will update the House again once the process is complete.

Twenty-four years ago, just weeks after I first joined the House, President Clinton hosted the Camp David summit—a reminder that this tragedy has lasted far too long. There are those in this House who, like me, represent constituents who are convinced that the world does not understand Israel’s predicament. To them I say that Israel is in a tough neighbourhood and is threatened by those who want it annihilated. There is no equivalence between Israel’s democratic Government and Hamas, a terrorist organisation responsible for an act of barbarism on 7 October that sought to kill countless Israelis and provoke wider conflict with Palestinians. I fully supported the UK’s role in defending Israel when Iran launched its unprecedented attack, and I utterly condemn the Houthi attack on Tel Aviv overnight.

There are also those who, like me, represent constituents who are convinced that the world does not understand the depth of Palestinian suffering. To them I say that civilians in Gaza are trapped in hell on earth. The Palestinian people have been in purgatory for decades, and have been denied the state that is their inalienable right.

As Foreign Secretary, I understand both those perspectives. I recognise the pain and anguish felt on all sides. It makes me only more determined to do all I can in this office to advance the cause of peace. I commend this statement to the House.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Edward Leigh)]

I call the Opposition spokesman.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Lammy]

My hon. Friend is very experienced, experienced enough to know that the minute any individual describes their leverage, that leverage is lost. Therefore, if he will forgive me, I will not share that at the Dispatch Box at this stage. However, the passion that lies behind his question is a concern that, for nine months, Foreign Secretaries have stood at this Dispatch Box and said that the aid must get in and that we must follow international humanitarian law—and now, months later, there is a new Foreign Secretary at the Dispatch Box and there are still serious concerns about international humanitarian law and the aid has simply not got in in the quantities needed. He shares my frustration, and it was frustration indeed that I shared with leaders in Israel.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Edward Leigh)]

I call Emily Darlington.

Northern Ireland Protocol Bill

Debate between Edward Leigh and David Lammy

2nd reading
Monday 27th June 2022 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lammy]

What can I say to the hon. Gentleman? The Opposition think that there is a better way forward through negotiation, but at least the proposition that he suggests is legal. I will come on to that in a moment.

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

The most important thing in all this is peace, and getting power sharing up and running. Will the right hon. Gentleman acquaint the House with the discussions that he has had with the DUP on the solution to the problem, given that the DUP refuses to rejoin power sharing unless the protocol is dealt with? I am sure that he has discussed this with the DUP.

[Mr Lammy]

In our discussions, the DUP had consistently said that it wanted a negotiated settlement—until it saw today’s Bill.

Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill

Debate between Edward Leigh and David Lammy

Monday 20th May 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Leigh]

My hon. Friend makes an obvious point, and of course we have moved on from the 1950s and 1960s. People have to feel comfortable with their own sexuality, but surely they should also feel comfortable expressing a traditional viewpoint. That is all that the new clause is trying to achieve.

If cases such as that of Adrian Smith can happen now, before the law is changed, we can be absolutely certain that there will be many more in the future. We cannot yet be sure what will happen in churches and elsewhere, but we can be sure that there will be more such cases if the Bill is passed unamended. Equality law is meant to protect all beliefs, religious and otherwise. Some people believe in man-woman marriage for religious reasons, and they have a right to that belief. Others believe in it for non-religious reasons. Both ought to be protected, but case law so far suggests that neither is. Apart from Adrian, no traditional marriage supporter who has been on either end of a legal action has ever won.

I have already said that Adrian’s victory was somewhat pyrrhic. Equality law was no help to him. He won an old-fashioned contract law claim. New clause 6 would address the obvious inequality in the law by ensuring that a belief in traditional marriage was protected on the “religion or belief” ground. It would not, of course, guarantee that a person with traditional views would win in every case. I am not suggesting that. All other considerations of equality law would still apply, as would all the other discrimination grounds. The new clause would not guarantee that a person with traditional views would win the race; it would simply get them a place on the starting blocks. That is all we are trying to do. This is a moderate, sensible measure and I hope that the Government will consider it, because we are about to create a whole new generation of victims.

Let me read what Mr Smith said:

“I tried reasoning with my bosses, but they dug their heels in. I was left with no option but to go to court to clear my name. It took the better part of two years, which was a living nightmare for my family and me. In November the High Court ruled in my favour. But they didn’t have the power to order my reinstatement so I was left in a demoted job which carried a lower salary. I have now found a job with a different employer. I shouldn’t have been treated like an outcast, and my family shouldn’t have had to suffer like they did.”

All the warm words of Ministers are worthless if someone is sitting in a housing association office in Bury being told that they are some kind of villain for saying that same-sex marriage is an “equality too far”. Ministerial assurances from the Dispatch Box are no help when people are stigmatised for a sincerely held belief and struggling financially because they have had 40% knocked off their salary. They need real legal protection against the bullies. New clause 6 would give them that protection, and I hope that hon. Members will support it.

[Mr David Lammy (Tottenham) (Lab)]

I have been moved to make a small contribution to the debate. It is important, in responding to the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr Leigh), to put it on record that there are many religious people who do not recognise the caricature that he has put before the House today. They understand that the House is deliberating on what will become law if the Bill passes through another place, and that, at other points in history, Members have had to make similar difficult determinations about what should become law. Once this measure becomes law, there will be an obligation on public servants such as registrars, and certainly on teachers, to understand this matter and to teach it as the law. We should therefore draw a distinction between the promotion or endorsement of a personal view and what is the law.

HEALTH

Debate between Edward Leigh and David Lammy

Thursday 20th December 2012 Commons Chamber

Mr Lammy

- Hansard - - Excerpts

My hon. Friend raises an important point. People are deeply concerned about the ability of the fire service to get to fires. When serious flames stretched on to the high road in my constituency and went on for hours, we needed our fire service. Even during that incident there were concerns, given what was happening, about the ability of fire services to get to those fires. This is serious. We are seeing the decimation of the London fire service. No fewer than 17 fire stations are earmarked for closure across the capital.

I am conscious that other colleagues want to make important contributions, so I will end my remarks. Over the Christmas break, which is a serious time, we will see how important our emergency services are, and that is always the case. This House will need to return to the subject. I hope that the Mayor will go into the detail of what is being proposed in London, because I am deeply concerned that, over the coming months and years, many Londoners and, indeed, many in this House who might need to rely on the police or fire service will find that they are not there for them in the way that they require.

Mr Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)

- Hansard -

Why is it that, 65 years after 55,000 of them—young men of Bomber Command—gave up their lives for our freedom and national survival, they are still waiting for a medal? If not now, when so few of them are left with us, when?

Religious Education

Debate between Edward Leigh and David Lammy

Tuesday 17th May 2011 Westminster Hall

[Mr Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

It has been an interesting debate and I hope that I will not, as so often happens, be the grit in the oyster. I value religion as much as anybody in the House—I have written a book on the decline of religion and how it affects society—but I believe that we owe the Minister a careful hearing, because the whole point of the E-bac is to bring rigor back into academic education. I support RE more than anybody, but too many schools have climbed up the league tables by, frankly, cheating by providing Mickey Mouse courses. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) on performing a great service with this debate. I have a son at the London Oratory, which is a Catholic school, and I value that fact. It will do very well out of the E-bac, because a rigorous academic school, which will continue to promote faith studies, will benefit in the league tables by concentrating on rigorous academic subjects such as maths and English.

I intervened on my hon. Friend earlier because those of us who support RE must argue based on what it is. Has it been so degraded in how it is taught that it is no longer an academic subject? Of course we should support other religions and value people of other religions—that goes without saying—but my hon. Friend the Member for St Albans (Mrs Main) says that we need to understand and to debate whether it is right for people to wear the burqa or the cross. That is fine as a subject of public debate, but should it be part of a rigorous academic subject?

[Mr Lammy]

I generally agree with the hon. Gentleman on these matters, but is he suggesting that Shakespeare is of more value than the Koran or the Bible?

[Mr Leigh]

No, I am not. I am saying that a close study of the Talmud is as valuable and rigorous, and in my view as academic, as a close study of the Koran or the Christian Bible.

If we are to restore religious education as an academic subject, we may have to restore it as an academic study. Otherwise, it will continue to be an easy cop-out. One cannot defend an academic subject on the ground of good citizenship—we should all be good citizens, we should all value other people and we should all be kind and nice to others, but that is not an academic subject.

I hope the Minister will assure us that the exclusion of religious education is not a prejudice against religion. I am sure he will want to assure us about academies, which is an important point. However, I hope that he will also give a hint to those of us who organise religious education—there is no point in denying that it was a bad Ofsted report—that it has to return to its history as a rigorous academic subject.