Ceasefire in Gaza

Debate between Layla Moran and David Lammy

Wednesday 21st February 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lammy]

I will make a little progress before taking further interventions.

Turning to the Government’s amendment, again, there are elements that we agree with, but there is a serious omission: its failure to call for a ceasefire that is immediate. I do not believe that the gap is unbridgeable—and I am looking forward to listening to the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell) when he gets to his feet. The Foreign Secretary says that he wants the fighting to stop now, mirroring my language and that of the Leader of the Opposition.

Throughout this war, the Government have followed us. We called for violent west bank settlers to be sanctioned on 6 November, and again on 9 November—the Government moved on 14 December. For two years since Boris Johnson’s appalling letter, we have been calling for the Government to accept the International Criminal Court’s jurisdiction over the conduct of all parties in the Occupied Palestinian Territories—again, the Government moved on 14 December to do just that. For a decade the Labour party has supported the recognition of the Palestinian state, as expressed in our motion—earlier this month, the Foreign Secretary moved to our position.

Therefore, we once again ask the Government to reflect on the mood of the House. We ask Conservative Members to accept the language in our amendment, so that we can speak together with one voice. I say that with all seriousness. We all know that while we can debate these issues in this House, their effect on the ground is something else entirely. However, if the UK Parliament can speak with one voice on this greatest of issues, perhaps we can genuinely make a difference.

[Layla Moran (Oxford West and Abingdon) (LD)]

I have been listening very carefully to the way in which the right hon. Gentleman has been prosecuting the merits of each of the different amendments. I would point out that there was a Liberal Democrat amendment that answered positively all of the points that have been made so far, but it was not selected for debate, which I feel is a shame. I will be encouraging my party to vote for all amendments that push the cause of peace. He mentions how this debate will be seen on the ground. Unfortunately, after today, it is likely that the headline from Parliament will be that an immediate ceasefire was rejected because of a lack of co-ordination, particularly between the Opposition Benches. Does he agree that we should and could have done better?

[Mr Lammy]

I have huge respect for the hon. Lady. Since 7 October, she and I have been in Bahrain together, meeting with middle east leaders to talk about these very issues. The whole point of Labour’s amendment is to give this House the opportunity to come together, and her poignant messages to this House a few weeks ago are a reason why this is the moment to do so.

Northern Ireland Protocol Bill

Debate between Layla Moran and David Lammy

2nd reading
Monday 27th June 2022 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lammy]

Negotiate—just as Labour did to get the Good Friday agreement. We negotiate. We do not break international law and alienate our partners and allies not just in Europe but across the world, and the right hon. Gentleman should know better.

As we debate the Bill, we should ask ourselves some simple questions. First, will it resolve the situation in Northern Ireland? Secondly, is it in the best interests of our great country? Thirdly, is it compatible with our commitment to the rule of law? Let me take each of those in turn.

[Layla Moran (Oxford West and Abingdon) (LD)]

Will the right hon. Member give way?

[Mr Lammy]

I will not at the moment.

Let us deal with Northern Ireland first as context. None of us in this House doubts that the situation in Northern Ireland is serious. Opposition Members need no reminder of the importance of the Good Friday agreement, which is one of the proudest achievements of a Labour Government, together with parties and communities across Northern Ireland and the Irish Government in Dublin. It was the result of hard work and compromise, graft and statesmanship, a relentless focus on the goal of peace. It was born six months after Bloody Sunday. For more than half my lifetime, Northern Ireland endured the pain and violence of conflict and division. More than 3,500 people were killed. Thousands more were injured. Cities and communities were riven by intolerance and division. I remember what that conflict brought to my city, from the Baltic Exchange attack to the Docklands bombing. Above the door over there and other doors into this Chamber are plaques to Airey Neave, Ian Gow, Sir Anthony Berry, Robert Bradford and, most recently, to Sir Henry Wilson.

Nearly a quarter of a century has passed since that hopeful Easter in 1998. Since then, we have seen transformational progress. A generation has grown up in a new Northern Ireland, harvesting the fruits of a hard-won peace. That legacy demands that all of us act with the utmost responsibility and sensitivity. We need calm heads at this moment and responsible leadership.

We recognise that the operation of the protocol and the barriers and checks that were inherent in its design have created new tensions that need to be addressed. Unionists feel that their place in the UK is threatened, and we must listen to all concerns on all sides. We all want to see power sharing restored. The UK Government, the European Union and parties across Northern Ireland need to show willing and act in good faith. However, at its most fundamental level, the Bill will not achieve its objectives. The House cannot impose a unilateral solution when progress demands that both sides agree. This is not an act of good faith, nor is it a long-term solution.

Only an agreement that works for all sides and delivers for the people and businesses of Northern Ireland will have durability and provide the political stability that businesses crave and the public deserve. Instead, the Bill will make a resolution more difficult. By breaking their obligations, the Government dissolve the little trust that remains; by taking this aggressive action, we make it harder for those on the other side of the table to compromise. On that basis alone, the Bill should be rejected.