Oral Answers to Questions
Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and David Lammy(2 days, 16 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab)
I will also ask my right hon. Friend about Ben-Gvir and Smotrich, and perhaps if I ask in a different way, we might get an answer. Lord Cameron of Chipping Norton tells us that before the last general election, the Foreign Office was working up potential sanctions against those two most controversial and infamous settlers and Ministers. I appreciate that sanctions are kept under review, but is my right hon. Friend in a position to tell us when a decision might be made, or if one has already been made, about those Ministers?
Mr Lammy
I think the previous Foreign Secretary was wrong to talk about sanctions under consideration—particularly to talk about sanctions that he said were under consideration but then did not implement. I will not get drawn on sanctions policy at the Dispatch Box, but I am pleased that my right hon. Friend is raising issues of such importance. Anyone looking can see the strength of feeling in the House.
Mr Lammy
My hon. Friend will be pleased to hear that I met the French Foreign Minister in London just last week, when we discussed these issues and agreed to co-ordinate better, and that the Home Secretary is working closely with the new French Interior Minister.
Mr Lammy
It was very important for me to meet the families of those people a few weeks ago. The killing of seven World Central Kitchen aid workers, including those British nationals, in an Israeli airstrike on Gaza on 1 April was appalling, and a matter of great concern. We continue to urge the Military Advocate General in Israel to proceed with a proper investigation and inquiry, and to get on with it as quickly as possible.
Mr Lammy
I confirm that, of course, everybody with a British passport has the right to representation. I would hope that we are the kind of country that supports all sorts of people in trouble who are in our country, whatever their background.
Ukraine: 1,000 Days
Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and David Lammy(1 week, 2 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Mr David Lammy)
With permission, Mr Speaker, I will make a statement on Ukraine. It has been 1,000 days since Russia’s full-scale invasion stunned the world—1,000 days in which Ukrainian bravery has inspired the world, and 1,000 days whose horror and bloodshed has dismayed the world. This war matters greatly for Britain and the global order, but first and foremost we must reflect on what it means for Ukrainians. Today, children mourn lost parents, parents mourn lost children, families live with constant fear, and individuals bear scars that will never truly heal, so I say to His Excellency the Ukrainian ambassador in London and to the Ukrainian people: today, as on every one of the last 1,000 days, you are in our thoughts and prayers.
Of course, Ukrainians need not just words but actions, and this Government have not wavered. We have stepped up support to Ukraine, we have ramped up the pressure on Russia, and we have made it clear to the world just what is at stake. In our first week in office, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister confirmed that we would provide £3 billion a year in military aid this year, next year and every year that it is needed. That includes what my right hon. Friend the Defence Secretary has announced today. There is more funding for Ukraine’s navy and for drones, and the extension of Operation Interflex, which has trained more than 50,000 Ukrainian troops to date.
I have also increased non-military support. This financial year, we will give at least £250 million in bilateral assistance, including for work to protect the Ukrainian power grid, which just this weekend suffered another Russian onslaught. Crucially, our bilateral support, both military and non-military, will be greater this financial year than in any previous financial year since the war began. Let me pay tribute to the Opposition for their leadership on these issues when they were in office, because the truth is that this House has been able to speak on Ukraine with one voice, and long may that continue.
That is not all that we have done. We have also been finding creative ways to bolster the Ukrainian economy further. We have brought the UK-Ukraine digital trade deal into force, so that Ukraine benefits from cheaper and quicker trade. UK Export Finance has provided over £500 million in loan guarantees, including for Ukraine’s own defence industry. British International Investment is working with the Ukrainian Bank of Reconstruction and Development to support Ukrainian trade. By the end of this year, we will have deployed a further $484 million in World Bank loan guarantees. Tomorrow, this House will debate a Bill confirming a new £2.26 billion loan to Ukraine as part of a G7 package of $50 billion. This extraordinary revenue acceleration scheme will sustain Ukraine in the fight, and is all paid for by the profits from frozen Russian assets.
I have made it my personal mission to do all that I can to constrain the Kremlin. Since July, we have sanctioned almost 40 vessels in Putin’s shadow fleet of oil tankers, barring them from our ports and denying them access to our maritime services. We have sanctioned firms that supply Russia’s military industrial complex, including Chinese firms sending critical components for drones. We have sanctioned cyber-criminals from the aptly named Evil Corp, Russian troops who have used chemical weapons on the battlefield, and mercenaries responsible for destabilising Africa.
We have taken further action this week. Yesterday, in response to Iran’s transfer of ballistic missiles to Russia, I imposed more sanctions, including on Iran Air. Today, I am announcing measures against those monsters who have forcibly deported Ukrainian children for attempted indoctrination by the Kremlin. I am proud of all that this Government have done to support Ukraine, proud of the unity that the House has shown on this issue, and proud that we have shown that Britain will remain Ukraine’s staunchest friend, both throughout this war and in the peace that follows, but we are always stronger when we work with others. I am also proud of what we have done to rally international support for Ukraine. I visited Ukraine with US Secretary of State Tony Blinken—the first such joint visit to any country in over a decade. I discussed Ukraine with the EU Foreign Affairs Council, marking the first appearance by a UK Foreign Secretary at a regular council meeting since our EU exit. Yesterday, I chaired a meeting of the United Nations Security Council on Ukraine, and just this morning, I joined a meeting of close European allies to discuss how we can bolster our support for Ukraine in the coming months.
We are stressing three fundamental truths about the war in all our discussions with allies and partners across the globe. First, Ukraine’s cause is just. It is Putin who chose to invade a sovereign country that posed no threat to Russia; it is Putin who disregarded the UN charter; it is Putin who tried to turn back the clock to an age of empire building, when might made right and ordinary people suffered the consequences; and it is Putin and his allies who are recklessly escalating this war, with Iranian ballistic missiles being used to strike Ukrainian cities, and North Korean troops being sent to attack Ukrainian soldiers. When we support Ukraine, we are not just aiding its fight for freedom; we are also contributing to our fight for our freedom—the freedom of all states, all over the world, to choose their own destiny and future.
The second truth is that Putin’s war is not, in fact, going that well. Russia is almost 1,000 days into a war that it thought would end in days, and we should never forget that. Russia has suffered record casualties in the past two months, with the number killed or injured due to exceed 1 million next year. Russia is slashing welfare payments and raising interest rates to levels not seen in decades, all to fund more arms, and it has had to turn to Tehran and Pyongyang, as reserves of Soviet-era equipment and targets for Kremlin press gangs run low. That is not sustainable. The war is costing Putin dearly—all in a fight for land to which Russia has absolutely no right, a fight for which the Russian people are paying an enormous price.
The final truth is that Putin has no interest in a just peace. It is 1,000 days since his full-scale invasion, over 10 years since he first seized Crimea and sponsored insurrection in Donbas, and even longer since he has sought to meddle in Ukrainian affairs, all to further his own interests. He has a track record of violating past agreements. He shows no sign of wanting peace. He would seek to exploit any pause in fighting to win his troops a respite before resuming hostilities, as he did after the failed Minsk talks.
I underline these truths because they must inform our strategy. If we want to see peace restored in Europe, we need Putin to see that there is no route to military victory. We need to make the price that he pays for his senseless war even higher. We need to remember that the price that we would pay for his victory would be higher still. We need Ukraine to stay strong, so Ukraine needs us to stay strong by its side. That is what this House wants us to do; that is what this Government will do; and that is what we call on our allies to do. Slava Ukraini! I commend this statement to the House.
Mr Lammy
This is my first opportunity to congratulate the right hon. Lady on taking up her post as shadow Foreign Secretary. We will probably disagree occasionally across the Dispatch Box about a few things, but I hope that we will never disagree on the support that we have to give to Ukraine. Her response to my statement underlines the unity of the House.
The right hon. Lady is right to recall the mobilisation of the last Government back in 2022. I am glad she reminded the House about the way British people have been prepared to open their homes in record numbers to so many Ukrainians, and about her leadership of the Home Office at that time. She is also right to raise our military-industrial capacity. I assure her that since coming into office, my right hon. Friend the Defence Secretary has made it his business to get underneath the bonnet of how we procure, contract and ensure innovation. British support is driving immense innovation in Ukraine, which the Defence Secretary and I have been able to see close up. It is something like a Blitz spirit, which is quite incredible; it is a whole-nation effort. Working in partnership can also drive innovation in our own system.
The right hon. Lady raises, quite rightly, defence spending. She will know that there are still countries in Europe and beyond that are not spending the 2% that is necessary. We urge them to do that. Successive US Presidents, long before Donald Trump, have been raising that as an issue. It is our intention to get back to 2.5% of GDP—that was the figure when we left office and we want to get back there. I remind her that this country has now committed £7.8 billion to military support, and the Prime Minister has committed to provide £3 billion a year in military support for as long as it takes.
She is right to raise the huge concerns about the DPRK. Some 10,000 North Korean troops are in Russia as we speak, which is a major escalation. That has been noted deeply in the Republic of Korea, because it links the Indo-Pacific to the Euro-Atlantic. As she knows, our system has been concerned about that subject for many years, but this is a major escalation in relation to those concerns.
The right hon. Lady is right to raise sanctions. The UK has now sanctioned over 2,100 individuals and entities under the Russian sanctions regime, as I have set out. I have gone after the Russian shadow fleet particularly. There is more to come. We will bear down heavily over the coming months and work with partners, both in the United States and Europe, to achieve that. She will have read about my dinner with the Prime Minister and Donald Trump. We discussed Ukraine and he was seized of the important issues. Donald Trump is a winner, not a loser, and I am sure he wants to ensure that the west is on the winning side.
Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab)
Members of my Committee and I have been meeting large numbers of European friends and neighbours, not just Ukrainians. Last week we met the Foreign Minister from Estonia, who told us that North Koreans were fighting on European soil only a few hundred kilometres from his country. Yesterday, we met Moldovan Members of Parliament, who pointed out that Russian rockets had been in their airspace the night before. We are hearing mounting concern from everyone that the change in leadership in the United States and potential elections in Germany might mean there is a challenge to the united support that we, in the west, have had for Ukraine over the last 1,000 days. What strategy does my right hon. Friend have to ensure that we remain strong, and that we all understand that a defeated Ukraine and an emboldened Putin is a defeat for all of us?
Mr Lammy
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for her leadership of the Foreign Affairs Committee. She is right that Russia’s illegal invasion of Ukraine poses a serious risk to the UK and Euro-Atlantic prosperity and security, but it is also a direct threat to the international rules-based system, including international principles of sovereignty and territorial integrity. When we think about our joint intelligence and military capabilities with the United States, remembering that many US troops are stationed in our own country and tens of thousands are stationed across Europe, in the end, with the developments we have seen with Korea, I am quite sure that we will continue to stand with Ukraine.
China: Human Rights and Sanctions
Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and David Lammy(1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Mr Lammy
I thank the right hon. Gentleman again for his interest in my travels, but I have to correct him on a few points. I did, of course, raise Xinjiang in the context of human rights. I absolutely raised, as I assured you, Mr Speaker, that I would, the position of parliamentarians—of course I did—not just with the Foreign Minister but with the foreign affairs spokesperson for the Chinese Communist party. I raised that as a matter of huge concern. I also raised the threats and aggression that we are now seeing in the South China sea. Jimmy Lai, I raised; Members of this House, I raised; Xinjiang, I raised; Hong Kong, I raised. It would be totally unacceptable for any UK Foreign Minister to go to China and not raise those issues of tremendous concern.
The right hon. Gentleman knows that the previous Government bounced around on China. They had a golden era—he was part of the Government who had that golden era and were drinking pints with President Xi. A former Prime Minister and Foreign Secretary were found to be lobbying on behalf of Chinese belt-and-road initiatives, so I am not going to take any lessons from the Opposition on how to handle China.
Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab)
My right hon. Friend has rightly outlined the complex nature of our relationship with China. May I add to the long list the tension in the strait of Taiwan and the effect that that is likely to have on international trade if it goes wrong? The fact that the relationship is complicated, however, does not mean that we should not get clarity. That is important not just for Members of the House but for others, whether they are promoting British exports overseas or are human rights campaigners such as Sebastien Lai, whom I met last week, or are British representatives in Mongolia. We need clarity in our approach to China, so we urgently need to know when the China audit will be completed. Will my right hon. Friend tell us when that is likely to happen, and will he also commit to appearing before my Committee to answer questions about it?
Mr Lammy
Yes, of course, I will appear before my right hon. Friend’s Committee, whenever she commands, to answer questions. She is absolutely right—the issues in the Taiwan strait are very serious. I raised those issues in China, and also in Indonesia and in Korea. We need a consistent approach to China, which is why we are doing the audit. It is my hope that it will be complete early next year.
Mr Lammy
I assure my hon. Friend that I raised those issues robustly. There was disagreement across the table on what the Chinese Government maintain that they are doing, particularly in Xinjiang and in relation to minorities—Mr Wang Yi suggested that I was “confused” in my account of the treatment of minorities. I assure my hon. Friend that we will, however, continue to raise these issues robustly and to hold the Chinese Government to account.
Mr Speaker
Yes, but I judge the similarity, not your good self. If the Foreign Secretary wishes to take it, fine. If he does not, I understand.
Mr Lammy
I assure the hon. Lady that I met with Alaa Abd El-Fattah’s family just a few weeks ago, and I raised the issue once again with the Egyptian Foreign Minister in a subsequent call.
Mr Speaker
Order. Can I gently say that Members should look at me when they are asking questions, not at the Foreign Secretary, as tempting as that is? I want questions to be done in the third person, to keep things calm.
Mr Lammy
The right hon. Gentleman raises an important issue. That point is why my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Business and Trade is engaged on an industrial policy as we speak, and why the debate must go on about friendshoring and how we work with partners—to make sure that we have access to not just semiconductors, but rare earth minerals, and can work on issues that are critical to our security. We must do far more than was achieved under the last Government.
Mr Lammy
The hon. Gentleman is right to combine those issues, and also to encourage me to mention not just our bilateral engagement with China, but our co-ordinated work with our allies to engage with China. It is the case, I think, particularly with our G7 allies, that there is more we can do.
Mr Speaker
That completes the urgent question. In fairness to the Foreign Secretary, I would just say that we did have a meeting—he is absolutely correct—about the situation facing some Members of this House. We are absolutely committed to ensuring that those sanctions are lifted, and that was part of the conversation.
Middle East
Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and David Lammy(1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Mr David Lammy)
With permission, Mr Speaker, I will make a statement on the middle east. After over a year of horrifying violence, civilian suffering has increased, the conflict has widened, the risks of a yet wider regional war have risen. Today, I want to address three elements of this crisis and outline the urgent steps that the Government are taking in response.
I will first consider events over the weekend. Targeted Israeli strikes hit military sites inside Iran, including a missile manufacturer and an air defence base. This was in response to Iran’s escalatory ballistic missile attacks on Israel, which have been condemned across the House. These attacks were the latest in a long history of malign Iranian activity, including its nuclear programme, with its total enriched uranium stockpile now reported by the International Atomic Energy Agency to be 30 times the joint comprehensive plan of action limit, and political, financial and military support for militias, including Hezbollah and Hamas.
Let me be clear: the Government unequivocally condemn Iranian attacks on Israel. This Government have imposed three rounds of sanctions on Iranian individuals and organisations responsible for malign activity, most recently on 14 October, and we have consistently supported Israel’s right to defend itself against Iranian attacks and attacks by Iranian-backed terrorists, whose goal is the complete eradication of the Israeli state. We do not mourn the deaths of the heads of proscribed terrorist organisations.
The priority now is immediate de-escalation. Iran should not respond. All sides must exercise restraint. We do not wish to see the cycle of violence intensifying, dragging the whole region into a war with severe consequences. Escalation is in no one’s interest, as it risks spreading the regional conflict further. We and our partners have been passing this message clearly and consistently. Yesterday, I spoke to Iranian Foreign Minister Araghchi and Israeli Foreign Minister Katz and urged both countries to show restraint and avoid further regional escalation.
Let me turn to the devastating situation in northern Gaza, where the United Nations estimates that over 400,000 Palestinian civilians remain. Access to essential services worsens by the day, yet still very little aid is being allowed in. Israel’s evacuation order in the north has displaced tens of thousands of Palestinian civilians, driven from destruction, disease, and despair to destruction, disease and despair. Nine in 10 Gazans have been displaced since the war began. Some have had to flee more than 10 times in the past year. What must parents say to their children? How can they explain this living nightmare? How can they reassure that it will end?
There is no excuse for the Israeli Government’s ongoing restrictions on humanitarian assistance; they must let more aid in now. Aid is backed up at Gaza’s borders, in many cases funded by the UK and our partners but now stuck out of reach of those who need it so desperately. These restrictions fly in the face of Israel’s public commitments. They risk violating international humanit-arian law. They are a rebuke to every friend of Israel, who month after month have demanded action to address the catastrophic conditions facing Palestinian civilians. So let me be clear once again: this Government condemn these restrictions in the strongest terms.
Since our first day in office, the Government have led efforts to bring this nightmare to an end. We have announced funding for UK-Med’s efforts to provide medical treatment in Gaza, for UNICEF’s work to support vulnerable families in Gaza, and for Egyptian health facilities treating medically evacuated Palestinians from Gaza. We are matching donations to the Disasters Emergency Committee’s middle east humanitarian appeal. Together with France and Algeria, we called an emergency UN Security Council meeting to address the dire situation. We have sanctioned extremist settlers, making it clear that their actions do not serve the real interests of either Israel or the region.
We have moved quickly to restore funding to the United Nations Relief and Works Agency, over- turning the position of the last Government. We did that to support UNRWA’s indispensable role in assisting Palestinians, and to enable it to implement the recommendations of the independent Colonna report. All over the world, in every war zone, in every refugee camp, the United Nations is a beacon of hope, so it is a matter of profound regret that the Israeli Parliament is considering shutting down UNRWA’s operations. The allegations against UNRWA staff earlier this year were fully investigated and offer no jurisdiction for cutting off ties with UNRWA. This weekend, we therefore joined partners in expressing concern at the Knesset’s legislation and urging Israel to ensure that UNRWA’s lifesaving work continues. We call on UNRWA to continue its path to reform, demonstrating its commitment to the principle of neutrality.
Finally, I will cover the conflict in Lebanon, a country that has endured so much in my lifetime and now sees fighting escalate once again, killing many civilians and forcing hundreds of thousands from their homes, while in northern Israel, communities live in fear of Hezbollah attacks and are unable to return home. Here, too, the Government have led efforts to respond. Our swift call for an immediate ceasefire was taken up by our partners in the United Nations Security Council. The Defence Secretary and I have visited Lebanon, where Britain’s ongoing support for the Lebanese armed forces is widely recognised as an investment in a sovereign and effective Lebanese state. At the start of October, I announced £10 million for the humanitarian crisis in Lebanon. Last week, the Minister for Development, my right hon. Friend the Member for Oxford East (Anneliese Dodds), announced further funding for the most vulnerable among those fleeing from Lebanon into Syria, while the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln (Hamish Falconer), joined the Lebanon support conference in Paris. Today, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will meet Prime Minister Mikati to reassure him of our support.
Across the region, our priorities are clear: de-escalation, humanitarian assistance, immediate ceasefires, upholding international law, and political solutions. This is how we save lives, how we liberate hostages, such as British national Emily Damari, and how we pull the region back from the brink. The Government have stepped up our diplomatic engagement to that end. The Prime Minister has spoken directly to Prime Minister Netanyahu and to President Pezeshkian, while I have made five visits to the region in just four months and held around 50 calls and meetings with Ministers and leaders in the region. I spoke this weekend to US Secretary Blinken, just back from the region.
It is a source of deep frustration that those efforts have not yet succeeded. We have no illusions about the deep-seated divisions in this region—a region scarred by fighting and false dawns in the past—but it is never too late for peace, and never too late for hope. This Government will not give up on the people of the region. We will keep playing our part in achieving a lasting solution, so that one day they might all live side-by-side in peace and security. I commend this statement to the House.
British Indian Ocean Territory: Negotiations
Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and David Lammy(1 month, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Mr David Lammy)
Mr Speaker, I am very grateful for your instructions at the beginning of this statement. With permission, I will make a statement on the conclusion of negotiations on the exercise of sovereignty over the British Indian Ocean Territory. [Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. I have done the bidding. I do not need others to come in on the back of it.
Mr Lammy
On Thursday 3 October, my right hon. and learned Friend the Prime Minister and Mauritian Prime Minister Jugnauth made an historic announcement: after two years of negotiations and decades of disagreement, the United Kingdom and Mauritius have reached a political agreement on the future of the British Indian Ocean Territory. The treaty is neither signed nor ratified, but I wanted to update the House on the conclusion of formal negotiations at the earliest opportunity.
Members will appreciate the context. Since its creation, the territory and the joint UK-US military base on Diego Garcia have had a contested existence. [Interruption.] In recent years, the threat has risen significantly. When we came into office, the status quo was clearly not sustainable. [Interruption.] A binding judgment against the UK seemed inevitable, and it was just a matter of time before our only choices would have been abandoning the base altogether or breaking international law.
Mr Speaker
You have been here long enough to know that points of order do not come at this stage. Good try, but it is not working.
Mr Lammy
If Members oppose the deal, which of the alternatives do they prefer? Doing this deal on our terms was the sole way to maintain the full and effective operation of the base into the future. That is why, in November 2022, the then Foreign Secretary, the right hon. Member for Braintree (Mr Cleverly), initiated sovereignty negotiations. It is also why my predecessor, Lord Cameron of Chipping Norton, ultimately continued with those negotiations. Under the previous Government, there were 11 rounds of negotiations, the last one held just weeks before the general election was called. In July, this Government inherited unfinished business. The threat was real, and inaction was not a strategy.
Inaction posed several acute risks to the United Kingdom. First, it threatened the UK-US base. From countering malign Iranian activity in the middle east to ensuring a free and open Indo-Pacific, the base is critical for our national security. Without surety of tenure, no base can operate effectively or truly deter our enemies. Critical investment decisions were already being delayed. Secondly, inaction impacted on our relationship with the United States, which neither wanted nor welcomed the legal uncertainty and strongly encouraged us to strike a deal. I am a transatlanticist, and we had to protect that important relationship. Thirdly, inaction undermined our international standing. We are showing that what we mean is what we say, when it comes to international law and our desire for partnerships with the global south. That strengthens our arguments on issues such as Ukraine or the South China sea.
Further legal wrangling served nobody’s interests but our adversaries’. In a more volatile world, a deal benefited us all—the UK, the United States and Mauritius. This Government therefore made striking the best possible deal a priority. We appointed Jonathan Powell as the Prime Minister’s special envoy for these negotiations, and he has worked closely with a brilliant team of civil servants and lawyers. Their goal was a way forward that serves UK national interests, respects the interests of our partners, and upholds the international rule of law. The agreement fulfils these objectives. It is strongly supported by partners, with Present Biden going so far as to “applaud” our achievement within minutes of the announcement. Secretary Blinken and Secretary Austin have also backed this “successful outcome” which “reaffirms” our “special defence relationship”. The agreement has also been welcomed by the Indian Government and commended by the United Nations Secretary-General.
In return for our agreeing to Mauritian sovereignty over the entire islands, including Diego Garcia, the UK-US base has an uncontested long-term future. Base operations will remain under full UK control well into the next century. Mauritius will authorise us to exercise their sovereign rights and authorities in respect of Diego Garcia. This is initially for 99 years, but the UK has the right to extend that. We have full Mauritian backing for robust security arrangements, including to prevent foreign armed forces from accessing or establishing themselves on the outer islands. The base’s long-term future is therefore more secure under this agreement than without it. If that were not the case, I doubt the White House, State Department or Pentagon would have praised the deal so effusively.
The agreement will be underpinned by a financial settlement that is acceptable to both sides. Members will be aware that the Government do not normally reveal payments for our military bases overseas, so it would be inappropriate to publicise further details of those arrangements at this stage.
The agreement also recognises and rights the wrongs of the past. The whole House would agree that the manner in which Chagossians were forcibly removed in the 1960s was deeply wrong and regrettable. Mauritius is now free to implement a resettlement programme to islands other than Diego Garcia. The United Kingdom and Mauritius have also committed to supporting Chagossians’ welfare, establishing a new trust fund capitalised by the UK, and providing additional Government support to Chagossians in the UK. The UK will maintain the pathway for Chagossians to obtain British citizenship. Furthermore, Mauritius and the UK will establish a new programme of visits to the archipelago for Chagossians.
The agreement also ushers in a new era in our relations with Mauritius—a Commonwealth nation and Africa’s leading democracy. We have agreed to intensify co-operation on our shared priorities, including security, growth and the environment. The agreement ensures continued protection of the islands’ unique environment, which is home to over 200 species of coral and over 800 species of fish.
Finally, I reassure the House and all members of the UK family worldwide that the agreement does not signal any change in policy on Britain’s other overseas territories. British sovereignty over the Falkland Islands, Gibraltar and the sovereign base areas is not up for negotiation. The situations are not comparable. That has been acknowledged across our overseas territories. Fabian Picardo, Chief Minister of Gibraltar, vocally supported the agreement, stating that there is “no possible read across” to Gibraltar on the issue of sovereignty. Similarly, the Governor of the Falklands has confirmed that the historical contexts of the Chagos islands and the Falklands are “very different”.
The Government remain firmly committed to modern partnerships with our overseas territories based on mutual consent. After the Mauritian elections, the Government will move towards treaty signature, and it is our intention to pursue ratification in 2025 by submitting the treaty and a Bill to this House for scrutiny. This is a historic moment, a victory for diplomacy. We have saved the base and secured Britain’s national interests for the long term. I commend this statement to the House.
Middle East Update
Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and David Lammy(2 months, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Mr David Lammy)
With permission, Mr Speaker, I will make a statement on the middle east.
On taking office in July, I told the House that this Government’s priority in the region will be to advance the cause of peace. That continues to be our mission on every front: in Israel, in the west bank, in Lebanon, in the Red sea and, of course, in Gaza, where we need an immediate ceasefire, the protection of civilians, the immediate release of all hostages and more aid getting into Gaza.
Over the summer, we faced the prospect of full-scale war breaking out between Lebanese Hezbollah and Israel. On each of my three visits to the region, including alongside my right hon. Friend the Defence Secretary and, most recently, my joint visit with French Foreign Minister Séjourné, I have urged Lebanese Hezbollah, the Lebanese Government and Israel to engage with the US-led discussions to resolve their disagreements diplomatically and to reach a peaceful resolution through the implementation of UN Security Council resolution 1701.
As we continue to work with our allies and partners to push for a diplomatic solution, we none the less stand ready for the worst-case scenario, including the potential evacuation of British nationals. Our message to those still in Lebanon remains clear: leave now.
Our common goal of peace in the middle east will never be lasting until there is safety, security and sovereignty for both Israel and a Palestinian state. We must all keep at the forefront of our mind the pain, the anguish and the horror this conflict has caused for so many ordinary civilians. The victims of the 7 October atrocity. The hostages and all those still enduring unimaginable suffering, whether they are hoping to see their loved ones again or are mourning their loss, as the tragic events of this weekend illustrate with the recovery of the bodies of six murdered hostages. The Israeli people still living under rocket fire, not only from Hamas but from other hostile actors explicitly dedicated to Israel’s annihilation, and fighting an enemy in Hamas whose appalling tactics endanger countless civilian lives. And the innocent Palestinians, with tens of thousands killed in the fighting, their numbers growing by the day, including distressing numbers of women and children. Many mothers are so malnourished that they cannot produce milk for their babies, and families are struggling to keep their children alive—disease and famine loom ever larger.
Heroic humanitarians are putting their lives on the line to help others, including the brave aid workers I met from the United Nations agencies and at the Palestine Red Crescent Society warehouse I visited alongside France’s Foreign Minister last month. Indeed, last Thursday, the UK led a session at the United Nations Security Council encouraging a continued global focus on the protection of civilians in Gaza, including the need for action on polio.
The escalation we are now seeing in the west bank, as well as in Gaza, is deeply worrying, with many communities facing settler violence amid an ongoing occupation, and so many on either side of this terrible conflict convinced that the world does not grasp the reality of Israel’s predicament, or the depth of Palestinian suffering.
Throughout my life, I have been a friend of Israel: a liberal, progressive Zionist who believes in Israel as a democratic state and a homeland for the Jewish people, which has the right both to exist and to defend itself. But I believe also that Israel will only exist in safety and security if there is a two-state solution that guarantees the rights of all Israeli citizens and their Palestinian neighbours, who have their own inalienable right to self-determination and security.
As concern at the horrifying scenes in Gaza has risen, many in this House, as well as esteemed lawyers and international organisations, have raised British arms export licensing to Israel. After raising my own concerns from Opposition, on taking office, I immediately sought to update the review. On my first appearance as Foreign Secretary in this House, I committed to sharing the review’s conclusions.
We have rigorously followed every stage of the process established by the previous Conservative Government. Let me first be clear on the review’s scope. This Government are not an international court. We have not, and could not, arbitrate on whether or not Israel has breached international humanitarian law. This is a forward-looking evaluation, not a determination of innocence or guilt, and it does not prejudge any future determinations by the competent courts.
However, facing a conflict such as this, it is this Government’s legal duty to review export licences. Criterion 2C of the strategic export licensing criteria states that the Government will
“not issue export licences if there is a clear risk that the items might be used to commit or facilitate serious violations of international humanitarian law”.
It is with regret that I inform the House today that the assessment I have received leaves me unable to conclude anything other than that, for certain UK arms exports to Israel, there exists a clear risk that they might be used to commit or facilitate a serious violation of international humanitarian law.
I have informed my right hon. Friend the Business and Trade Secretary. Therefore, he is today announcing the suspension of around 30 licences, from a total of approximately 350, to Israel, as required under the Export Control Act 2002. These include licences for equipment that we assess is for use in the current conflict in Gaza, such as important components that go into military aircraft, including fighter aircraft, helicopters and drones, as well as items that facilitate ground targeting. For transparency, the Government are publishing a summary of our assessment.
Today, I want to underline four points about these decisions. First, Israel’s actions in Gaza continue to lead to immense loss of civilian life, widespread destruction to civilian infrastructure and immense suffering. In many cases, it has not been possible to reach a determinative conclusion on allegations regarding Israel’s conduct of hostilities, in part because there is insufficient information either from Israel or other reliable sources to verify such claims. Nevertheless, it is the assessment of His Majesty’s Government that Israel could reasonably do more to ensure that lifesaving food and medical supplies reach civilians in Gaza, in the light of the appalling humanitarian situation.
This Government are also deeply concerned by credible claims of mistreatment of detainees, which the International Committee of the Red Cross cannot investigate after being denied access to places of detention. Both my predecessor and all our major allies have repeatedly and forcefully raised these concerns with the Israeli Government. Regrettably, those concerns have not been addressed satisfactorily.
Secondly, there can be no doubt that Hamas pay not the slightest heed to international humanitarian law and endanger civilians by embedding themselves in the tightly concentrated civilian population and in civilian infrastructure. There is no equivalence between Hamas terrorists—or indeed Iran and its partners and proxies—and Israel’s democratic Government, but to license arms exports to Israel we must assess its compliance with international humanitarian law, notwithstanding the abhorrence of its opponents’ tactics and ideology.
Thirdly, this is not a blanket ban or an arms embargo. The suspension targets around 30 of approximately 350 licences to Israel in total, for items that could be used in the current conflict in Gaza. The rest will continue. The action we are taking will not have a material impact on Israel’s security. This suspension covers only items that might be used in the current conflict. There are a number of export licences that we have assessed are not for military use in the current conflict and therefore do not require suspension. They include items that are not being used by the Israel Defence Forces in the current conflict, such as trainer aircraft or other naval equipment. They also include export licences for civilian use, covering a range of products such as food-testing chemicals, telecoms, and data equipment. This suspension will not prejudice the international, collaborative, global F-35 programme that supplies aircraft for more than 20 countries, which is crucial to wider peace and security. Indeed, the effects of suspending all licences for the F-35 programme would undermine the global F-35 supply chain that is vital for the security of the UK, our allies and NATO. Therefore, the Business and Trade Secretary has exempted these licences from his decision.
Fourthly, the Government will keep our position under review. Commitment to comply with international humanitarian law is not the only criterion in making export-licensing decisions. We will continue to work with our allies to improve the situation. Foreign policy, of course, involves tough choices, but I will always seek to take such decisions in line with our principles and I will keep the House updated, in line with my previous commitment.
Mr Speaker, we do not take this decision lightly, but we note that, on previous occasions, Ministers from all parts of the House—Labour, Conservative and Liberal Democrat—chose not to license exports to Israel. In 1982, Margaret Thatcher imposed a full arms embargo and an oil embargo on Israel as it fought in Lebanon. Conflicts in Gaza prompted Gordon Brown to suspend five licences in 2009, and Vince Cable chose not to issue new licences while conducting a review in 2014. Like them, this Government take seriously their role in applying export licensing law, reflecting the published criteria and the specific circumstances. But let me leave this House in no doubt: the UK continues to support Israel’s right to self-defence in accordance with international law.
In April, British fighter jets intercepted Iranian missiles aimed at Israel, preventing significant loss of civilian life. We supported robust action against the Iranian-backed Houthis in Yemen, who have attacked Israel directly as well as Israeli-linked shipping. Iran should be in no doubt of our commitment to challenge its reckless and destabilising activity in the region and across the world. We will continue to work hand in glove with our international partners to stand up to Iranian aggression and malign activity wherever it is found, and we continue to hold Iran to account, including through extensive sanctions.
Today, we are doing so again. We are announcing new sanctions on four Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps force targets, which have a role in supporting Iranian proxy actions in Iraq, Syria, and Lebanon. Through the UK’s dedicated Iran sanctions regime we have sanctioned more than 400 Iranian individuals and entities. And through our work with partners, we are exposing and containing Iran’s destabilising weapons development, where soon we will be introducing further regulations to bolster existing bans on the export of goods and technology significant to Iran’s production of drones and missiles.
Let me be clear: we will continue to work with Israel and our partners to tackle the threat from Iran across the region. This Government will continue to stand for Israel’s security, and we will always do so in a manner consistent with our obligations to domestic and international law. Mr Speaker, I commend this statement to the House.
Mr Lammy
I was very pleased to meet—alongside the Minister for Development, my right hon. Friend the Member for Oxford East (Anneliese Dodds)—Dr Tedros, who leads the World Health Organisation, to discuss those issues and his particular concerns about disease and polio in the area. We continue to press for a ceasefire and are working with all colleagues to get it. Just before I came to the House, President Biden confirmed that the ceasefire is in reach. I urge all sides now to make that ceasefire happen, bring these horrors to an end and get the hostages out.
Oral Answers to Questions
Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and David Lammy(4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Lammy
I know that my hon. Friend has pressed these issues, which are of huge importance to her constituents, for many years. No one has a veto on recognition. As I said, we want it to be part of a process; it does not deliver a two-state solution in and of itself. But it is absolutely right that the Palestinians are enabled to have a sovereign state. It is a just cause, and we will work with other partners to bring that about.
Mr Speaker
Order. Can I just say to everybody that Members are meant to speak through the Chair? Please look towards me or the mics might not pick you up.
Mr Hussain
I hear what the Secretary of State said, but does he agree that the immediate recognition of the state of Palestine is vital to the UK’s commitment to uphold international law and norms, vital to the processes required to bring about an immediate and just peace, and vital to the notion that diplomatic means and not violence are the way to resolve the conflict? Does he agree that failure to recognise the state of Palestine has had and continues to have catastrophic implications for the people of Palestine, as they face what the International Criminal Court has described as plausible genocide?
Mr Lammy
The hon. Gentleman is right that peace will be achieved through a political solution, not through military means. But I disagree that recognition itself will bring about peace. The Biden plan is on the table at the moment, and we would like Hamas and the Israeli leadership to accept it. That is what will give us a ceasefire and get us to a place where we can achieve that two-state solution.
Mr Andrew Mitchell (Sutton Coldfield) (Con)
May I welcome the Foreign Secretary to his new position, since this is the first time that we have met across the Dispatch Box since we swapped sides? I welcome all his team, especially the hon. Member for Lincoln (Hamish Falconer), who was previously a respected and effective official in both the Ministries in which I served as a Cabinet Minister.
I urge the Foreign Secretary to avoid any suggestion of some sort of international legal-moral equivalence between a terrorist murderer and the elected head of a democratic state. In any question of an arms embargo, I remind him that just a few weeks ago, British arms and military personnel were defending our ally Israel from missiles launched by Iran.
Mr Lammy
Let me begin by welcoming the right hon. Gentleman to his position. It is great to see him where he is, and not on the Government Benches. He will know that these are very serious issues, and that the test under criterion 2c is whether there is a “clear risk”. That is based on very careful assessments of the law. He would expect me to pursue that with all sobriety and integrity, and that is what I intend to do.
Mr Lammy
The hon. Gentleman has great experience in these matters, but I disagree with him slightly. He will remember that the previous Government set a timetable and said that we would have a trade agreement by Diwali, but I am afraid the question is which one, because successive Diwalis passed and we did not get one. I am very pleased that the Trade Secretary has set out that we are going to continue negotiations, and of course these issues came up with my counterpart in Delhi.
Mr Lammy
I welcome the Ukrainians’ desire to have peace summits, and to see so many nations come together to discuss the issues that are pertinent to getting that peace. The hon. Lady knows that the best way to achieve peace is for Russia to leave, for us to continue to stand with Ukraine, and for this to be a cross-party issue, which is just what we committed to in opposition. I am very grateful to the shadow Foreign Office team for ensuring that this remains a bipartisan issue in the UK Parliament.
Mr Lammy
I raised this issue in opposition—I think it was the subject of the last speech I gave before the election—and it is an issue that I intend to take up with full vigour. We were concerned that parts of the last Government were turning a blind eye to these issues. I hope to come forward with further proposals in the coming weeks.
Mr Lammy
It was very important for me to meet the hostage families when I was in Israel, and I have spoken to hostage families since returning back to the country. We are of course giving all the assistance we can to the Israeli authorities to ensure that the hostages get out. I want the hon. Gentleman to understand that we have this as a No. 1 concern. Those hostages need to be returned.
Royal Assent
Mr Speaker
I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent 1967, that the King has signified his Royal Assent to the following Act:
Supply and Appropriation (Main Estimates) Act 2024.
Oral Answers to Questions
Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and David Lammy(7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr David Lammy (Tottenham) (Lab)
More than 30,000 Palestinians are dead, more than 100 Israeli hostages are still unaccounted for and Gaza is facing famine. The war must end now with an immediate ceasefire. That needs both sides to agree. It was Hamas, not Israel, who rejected the last internationally brokered ceasefire deal. Now a new offer is on the table, and Hamas now have the power to stop the fighting. Does the Minister agree that Hamas should accept this deal and avert a catastrophic continuation of this war?
Mr Mitchell
Yes. The right hon. Gentleman makes a very good point and, although these negotiations are fluid at the moment, he is right to say that Hamas should accept the deal that has been put on the table.
Mr David Lammy (Tottenham) (Lab)
Last week the US Congress agreed a new $61 billion aid package for Ukraine. The bipartisan co-operation led by Mike Johnson is essential if Ukraine is to continue to defend against Putin’s illegal invasion. I am proud that this House will stand united on Ukraine for as long as it takes to win. Will the Minister update the House on progress with our G7 allies to seize and repurpose frozen Russian state assets in the UK, to support the reconstruction of Ukraine?
Ceasefire in Gaza
Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and David Lammy(9 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Lammy
I have been calling for the fighting to stop for weeks. The Leader of the Opposition has been calling for the fighting to stop for weeks. I say to the hon. Gentleman that I was in the west bank, and in Egypt, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia—that is how seriously we take the issue. I was also in Israel. None of us—[Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. The right hon. Gentleman is meant to be speaking through the Chair, not the other way.
Mr Lammy
None of us has more moral authority than each of us acting to pass a motion and speak with one voice in this House today.
The British people have seen the spectre of violence in Northern Ireland over many decades. They understand that a ceasefire is not the final destination, but a step on the road to a lasting peace; one that requires hard negotiation and a road map for a political process. There is no way out of the crisis without the hope that both Palestinians and Israelis have a path to security, justice and opportunity in lands they can call their own. Progress will require genuine partners for peace on both sides of the table. Hamas and Israeli hardliners want to bury a two-state solution, and we must now unite to show that we will not let that happen.
As I said before, my discussions with the United States and with European and Arab leaders in Munich have made clear the widespread acknowledgment of the need to urgently seek that just and lasting solution: a sovereign and viable Palestinian state, and a safe and secure Israel, with strong and trusting relations with the countries in the region. That is the prize. I do not underestimate the great pain and division that must be overcome, or the challenges ahead. The UK cannot advance this agenda on its own, but it cannot sit this one out. It is time for the international community to stand up and achieve an end to the fighting and a path to peace, and the UK must play its part. That is why our amendment makes it explicit that we will not give up on a two-state solution. It makes it clear that we will work with international partners to recognise a Palestinian state as a contribution to, rather than an outcome of, a two-state solution.
In this House we are used to division because our trade is politics, but on this matter we must rise above it. When the British people are so clear and so concerned, from Truro to Inverness, let no one tell us that they take no interest in foreign affairs. Would it not send a powerful message if, for once, we could come together as a House for the sake of the nation and for the sake of peace? In this spirit, we designed an amendment that my hon. Friends to the left and to the right of me, and those on the Government Benches across from me, may vote for. It is my appeal to those in this House that we come together, calling in one voice to end the killing and for an immediate humanitarian ceasefire, and calling on both sides to stop.
A united Parliament today can show we are rolling up our sleeves, and committing to the long, hard road to peace. So we will have made the voice of our nation heard to influence this war, and to help these tragic children of the same land to find peace in the beautiful Palestine of tomorrow and in an Israel without tears, where the stones of Jerusalem shall finally be a city of peace. I beg the House to approve the Labour amendment.
Oral Answers to Questions
Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and David Lammy(10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr David Lammy (Tottenham) (Lab)
For a decade now, the Labour party has supported Palestinian recognition. As my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer) has said,
“statehood is not in the gift of a neighbour. It is the inalienable right of the Palestinian people.”
I welcome the Foreign Secretary adopting that position and rejecting the notion that recognition can only follow the conclusion of negotiations. After the unacceptable comments by Prime Minister Netanyahu, does the Prime Minister agree that no country has a veto over the UK’s decision to recognise Palestine?
Mr Mitchell
I can tell the shadow Foreign Secretary that we will pursue the policy that we think is right. The Foreign Secretary set out clearly in his remarks last night the importance of a credible route to a Palestinian state and a new future. In respect of the conversations that the Foreign Secretary will have had last week with Prime Minister Netanyahu, I cannot trade the details across the House, but I can tell the right hon. Gentleman that the Foreign Secretary will have represented the British position with Prime Minister Netanyahu, whom he knows very well, with great accuracy.
Mr David Lammy (Tottenham) (Lab)
From the floods to the fires, from melting ice sheets to ocean heat, the climate crisis is reaching a tipping point. Labour has a plan at home: doubling onshore wind, trebling solar and ending new oil and gas licences in the North sea. Labour has a plan internationally: a clean power alliance of developed and developing countries to drive forward the transition. Is it not the truth that the Government have no plan and have squandered Britain’s climate reputation to wage culture wars at home?
Israel and Gaza
Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and David Lammy(11 months, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr David Lammy (Tottenham) (Lab)
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Layla Moran) for securing this very important urgent question. May I say how deeply sorry I am to hear of the terrifying experience facing her family in Gaza? I am sure the whole House is with her and her relatives at what must be an incredibly difficult time.
The reports from the Holy Family Catholic church are shocking: an innocent mother and daughter killed in the grounds of a church, with others too scared to leave and now running out of food. Once again in this conflict, a place of sanctuary and peace has become a scene of fear and death. It is one example of the ongoing humanitarian catastrophe confronting civilians across Gaza, and a reminder of the urgent imperative to address this crisis and help bring about the conditions for a sustainable ceasefire. It comes at a moment of growing concern that this conflict could escalate, with Hezbollah in the north, more violence in the west bank, and Houthi threats in the Red sea. We support efforts to maintain regional security, and Labour welcomes the UK’s participation in the new maritime security effort. We thank our armed forces personnel for their service and professionalism.
Today, the United Nations Security Council is voting once again on a resolution. This is a crucial chance to address the urgent and catastrophic situation in Gaza. Let me be clear: Labour wants a resolution to pass, one that can protect civilian lives, that demands that hostages are released, and that can act as a stepping stone towards a sustainable ceasefire and provide renewed impetus towards a two-state solution. The time has come for the United Kingdom to support our international allies at this critical moment.
Venezuela: Threat to Guyana
Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and David Lammy(11 months, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Mr David Lammy (Tottenham) (Lab)
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Bridgwater and West Somerset (Mr Liddell-Grainger) for securing the question on this important matter.
The actions of Venezuela over the past few weeks have been provocative and dangerous. President Maduro has shown a determination to stoke historical grievances, attack recognised international borders and seek aggressive confrontation instead of good neighbourly relations. All that sounds worryingly familiar, because it is the playbook of President Putin. We have challenged it in Ukraine, and we must do the same in Guyana. We often talk in abstract terms about the importance of a rules-based international order, but this is its essence: that disputes are settled peacefully through proper legal and diplomatic processes, not through threats or intimidation; that settled and recognised borders are not subject to change through threat or force; and that the big cannot bully the small. We must be resolute in standing up to those with imperialist ambitions.
I welcome that there will be talks between the leaders of Guyana and Venezuela in St Vincent. I put on record my thanks to Brazil for its leadership on this matter, including the deployment of troops along its border. Those talks should be a mechanism to reduce the tensions brought about by Venezuela’s actions, not a discussion about settled borders or a reward for threats. The Essequibo border was settled more than 100 years ago in 1899. Has the Minister spoken directly to Brazilian or American counterparts, or to key regional bodies such as CARICOM—the Caribbean Community—and the Organisation of American States, about responding to Maduro’s actions?
Guyana is a diverse, beautiful and proud country with close ties of history, friendship and family with the UK. As the child of parents who came from Guyana as part of the Windrush generation, I am living proof of our shared history. For my relatives, and for all the people of Guyana, this is a deeply troubling time. I am grateful that the Minister has indicated that he will go to Guyana shortly, and that the UK’s support for Guyana’s sovereignty is unwavering. What specific actions are the Government taking to ensure that, if the threat is followed through, Guyana’s sovereignty is protected?
David Rutley
It is good to see strong cross-party support on this vital issue. I certainly recognise the right hon. Gentleman’s interest in this matter from his personal perspective and from a geopolitical perspective. He is absolutely right: this is from the playbook of Putin and other dictators around the world, and it needs to be called out and stopped. We are grateful for the work that Ralph Gonsalves, the Prime Minister of St Vincent and the Grenadines, is doing to facilitate those conversations. They need to be about de-escalation; the border is a settled issue as far as we are concerned.
The right hon. Gentleman asks what action we are taking. I can assure him that there have been multiple conversations. The Foreign Secretary is absolutely concerned about this. I have held conversations with interlocutors in Brazil, Colombia, Ecuador and many other places. I was in Argentina for the inauguration at the weekend, and I met many interlocutors there who all share the concern. We will work with CARICOM, the OAS, the UN, and, of course, the Commonwealth, which is vital, to call this out and take whatever steps are required.
Oral Answers to Questions
Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and David Lammy(11 months, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr David Lammy (Tottenham) (Lab)
Another day when the Foreign Secretary is unaccountable, in the middle of a war that could still get even worse. West bank violence is rising, Hezbollah have attacked Israeli positions and Israeli airstrikes have hit towns in south Lebanon. A widening of this conflict is in no one’s interest, and all parties must show restraint. While he is absent from this place, what steps is the Foreign Secretary taking to prepare for further escalation and to deter all parties from full-blown regional war?
Mr Mitchell
First of all, I fully understand that the right hon. Gentleman wishes to have close contact with Lord Cameron as the Foreign Secretary, but he will be aware that he is in almost continuous contact with the Foreign Secretary by text and WhatsApp—indeed, Mr Speaker, if he was in any closer contact it would probably be a civil partnership.
On the substantive point about the widening of the conflict, the right hon. Gentleman will know that, very early after 7 October, the Prime Minister moved a British military asset to the eastern end of the Mediterranean, first to try to ensure that, if there were any arms being moved, we would know about it, and secondly to have eyes on what was happening. British diplomacy, along with that of our like-minded allies and friends, is devoted to ensuring that the conflict does not widen.
Mr David Lammy (Tottenham) (Lab)
An aggressive threat to a smaller neighbour, an attack on recognised international borders, an illegitimate referendum stoking historical grievances—the Putin playbook is being copied in Caracas by Maduro. We must stand up to bullies and tyrants with imperial ambitions. As we maintain our steadfast commitment to Ukraine, can the Minister reaffirm the UK’s unwavering support for Guyana’s sovereignty?
Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories
Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and David Lammy(1 year ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr David Lammy (Tottenham) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for advance sight of his statement.
I would have liked to have started by welcoming the new Foreign Secretary to his place, but I cannot do so because he is not here. Despite my respect for the Minister, he is not the Foreign Secretary. We do not know when or how this House will hear from the Foreign Secretary because he is not a Member. [Interruption.]
Mr Lammy
David Cameron is the seventh Foreign Secretary in seven years of Tory chaos. He was forced to resign in failure over a matter of foreign policy. The Prime Minister has looked at each of the 350 Conservative Members and decided that none of them would be better at representing Britain’s interests on the world stage. The Prime Minister claims he is for change, but instead he has resurrected yesterday’s failure with an honour. That decision raises serious questions for this House, but I know you share those concerns, Mr Speaker.
At a time of grave international crisis and at a moment of war in Europe, with a more assertive China, a climate emergency and a horrifying conflict in Gaza, this House needs Government accountability more than ever. Will the Minister commit to working closely with Mr Speaker to ensure that the Opposition and all Members of Parliament can hold the Foreign Secretary to account?
I turn to the horrors of Gaza. More than 11,000 Palestinians have reportedly been killed, with two thirds of the dead being women and children. This is shocking and devastating. Every civilian death is an equal tragedy. Does the Minister agree that the number of Palestinian civilians and children who have been killed over the past month is intolerable? And does he agree that Israel must make changes to how it is fighting this war, by taking urgent and concrete steps to protect civilian life?
I am gravely concerned by the desperate reports from hospitals in northern Gaza. These hospitals were already overstretched with the wounded, short of fuel and filled with civilians seeking shelter. Doctors are now forced to make impossible choices as they try to care for the wounded and newborns, without power. Some of those newborns have now lost their lives—unbearable.
Medical establishments have special protection under international law. They should never be targeted or used as shields. All parties must follow international law, acting with necessity, distinction, proportionality and precaution. Allegations of breaches should always be treated with the utmost seriousness.
The Minister said last week that the Government support the independence of the International Criminal Court, as does the Labour party, but he failed to answer whether the Government recognise its jurisdiction to address the conduct of all parties in Gaza. As Prime Minister, Boris Johnson rejected that jurisdiction and attacked the court. Labour recognises the ICC’s jurisdiction. Can the Minister clarify his Government’s position today?
Gaza is in a humanitarian catastrophe. More than 1.5 million people have been displaced, and there are desperate shortages of basic essentials. Does the Minister agree that the short pauses in the north are clearly not enough? Gazans need aid now. They need medicine now. They need water now. They need food now. They need fuel now. A full, comprehensive and immediate humanitarian pause in fighting across the whole of Gaza is needed now to alleviate Palestinian suffering and in order for Hamas terrorists to release the hostages.
Hamas’s stated aim is to wipe Israel off the map. They committed the most brutal attack on Jews since the holocaust and now they are using innocent Palestinians as human shields. I would like to register my shock that not every Member of this House can say this truth: Hamas are terrorists.
We must not give up on the narrow openings that keep the prospect of peace alive. That means preventing escalation, condemning violence from settlers in the west bank, condemning rocket attacks on Israel from Iran’s proxies in Lebanon and elsewhere, and creating a future where Gaza is not subject to occupation. Meanwhile, international diplomacy evolves and the facts on the ground are changing day to day, in relation to both hostages being rescued and Hamas’s capability to carry out attacks such as we saw on 7 October. As the Leader of the Opposition set out to Chatham House, we must move to a full
“cessation of fighting as quickly as possible...the reality is that neither the long-term security of Israel nor long-term justice for Palestine can be delivered by bombs and bullets.”
We must seek a path to a political process that leads to two states, a secure Israel and an independent Palestine.
Mr Mitchell
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his comments, and perhaps I should start by addressing those about the Foreign Secretary. Having a former Prime Minister and party leader as our Foreign Secretary, wherever one sits in this House, must be a plus. They will be able to exert British influence and policy highly effectively overseas, and I greatly welcome the appointment of Lord Cameron to the position of Foreign Secretary. As the House will know, he is an extremely experienced parliamentarian, and I have no doubt whatsoever that the House, the Foreign Office and the Government will gain enormously from his presence.
The right hon. Gentleman asked me whether I will commit to working closely with you, Mr Speaker, and of course there is only one answer to that question.
Oral Answers to Questions
Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and David Lammy(1 year, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr David Lammy (Tottenham) (Lab)
George Mitchell, the great American peacemaker, said that diplomacy was
“700 days of failure and one day of success”.
Labour recognises the hard, quiet diplomacy required to secure the release of hostages and eventually long-term peace, but in this bloody war we cannot afford 700 days without success. Overnight, we saw reports of the possible release of 50 hostages, only to learn that those talks had stumbled. Can the Foreign Secretary update the House on the progress to secure the release of all the 200 hostages so cruelly taken by Hamas terrorists?
Oral Answers to Questions
Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and David Lammy(1 year, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr David Lammy (Tottenham) (Lab)
The Minister will have heard the strength of feeling across the House this morning. Recently in Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories we have seen new illegal settlements announced, increasing violence and terrorist attacks and a rise in civilian deaths. All those steps imperil a two-state solution, yet the Government’s focus has been on their ill-conceived and badly designed Economic Activity of Public Bodies (Overseas Matters) Bill. Reports suggest that our diplomats warned Ministers that it would breach our obligations under UN resolution 2334. Is that true? If so, why is the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, the right hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Michael Gove), undermining UK foreign policy?
Mr David Lammy (Tottenham) (Lab)
Last week’s Intelligence and Security Committee report exposed the consequences of more than a decade of Conservative division, inconsistency and complacency towards China. It looked rather like a bad Ofsted school inspection report. It described the UK’s approach to China as “completely inadequate” and it said it had left us “severely handicapped” in managing Britain’s future security. National security is the first responsibility of Government. What will the Government do, in response to this report, to rectify their past mistakes and raise their standards?
Oral Answers to Questions
Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and David Lammy(1 year, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr David Lammy (Tottenham) (Lab)
As the NATO Secretary-General said last month, Ukraine’s “rightful place” is in NATO. Over time, our support will help to make that possible. Does the Foreign Secretary agree that once, with our support, Ukraine has prevailed in its war against Russia’s invasion, there can be no Minsk 3.0, and that Britain should play a leading role in securing Ukraine’s path to join NATO?
James Cleverly
I am very glad that the right hon. Gentleman agrees with the Government’s position on this, which is that Ukraine’s rightful place is within NATO. We have worked towards that aim. Our support—the training, equipment and advice that we have provided—will have helped to speed up the pathway from now to the point when Ukraine becomes a full member of NATO.
Mr David Lammy (Tottenham) (Lab)
Our allies in the United States, the European Union, Australia and Germany have all entered the global race to reach net zero and create the jobs of the future with massive public investment, but the Government’s Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero described the United States Inflation Reduction Act as “dangerous” and the Chancellor described it as “distortive” and “not the British way.” Does the Foreign Secretary agree with his colleagues in Cabinet or our allies in the United States? It will be interesting to see whether the Foreign Secretary answers.
Kosovo
Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and David Lammy(1 year, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Mr David Lammy (Tottenham) (Lab)
The situation in northern Kosovo is extremely precarious and warrants the urgent attention of this House. Last week, 30 NATO peacekeepers and more than 50 Serbian protesters were injured. Labour pays tribute to the NATO mission and our troops, and condemns all actions that raise tension, lead to violence and undermine efforts towards normalisation.
I visited Kosovo in January. Its people remain hugely grateful for the NATO intervention in 1999, led by the then Prime Minister, Tony Blair, and President Clinton. That intervention brought bloody violence not witnessed on European soil for decades to a halt. We are proud of our historic actions, but it is crucial that Britain plays its part now too. We must remain focused on de-escalation and the re-establishment of constructive dialogue between Pristina and Belgrade, uphold the sovereignty of both Kosovo and Serbia, ensure the rights of minorities on both sides of the border, and protect democracy. This matters for the strategic interest of our whole continent. We must seek difficult conversations today to avoid further violence and escalation tomorrow. Labour is committed to that, and that is why I visited earlier in the year, when tensions began to rise.
Despite our historic role in the region, the UK has all too often been absent from it. The issue has been absent from the Prime Minister and Foreign Secretary’s diaries, despite the important work of the UK envoy; the UK has been absent when it comes to taking actions to prevent interference in the region by bad actors such as Russia, which has been sowing the seeds of discord in the region; and, most crucially, we have been absent from the EU-led dialogue process. Does the UK support the rerunning of elections in the four municipalities concerned, and does the Minister agree that Kosovo’s Serbs should be expected to take part? Does he share my serious concern about the fact that the Serbian armed forces have been placed on the highest alert? Why has no UK Foreign Secretary visited Kosovo since 2016? It is time that the UK remembered its historic role in the region, and urgently started to show some leadership.
Oral Answers to Questions
Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and David Lammy(1 year, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr David Lammy (Tottenham) (Lab)
I am hugely grateful to our armed forces and civil servants involved in the evacuation of Sudan. With the operation now ended, it is right to examine whether all the correct decisions were made. We know that the evacuation effort was initially stood down once diplomats were out, while other countries continued, and that national health service doctors resident in the UK were initially turned away. Can the Foreign Secretary confirm that every national health service doctor who asked to be evacuated was evacuated, regardless of whether they were British citizens or residents?
Oral Answers to Questions
Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and David Lammy(1 year, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr David Lammy (Tottenham) (Lab)
The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps is responsible for 10 kidnap and death plots on British soil, the execution of Alireza Akbari, the unjust imprisonment of British nationals, supporting violent militia across the middle east and the brutal crackdown on courageous Iranian protesters. Labour has been clear, and I wonder if we might get clarity from the Foreign Secretary. We would proscribe the IRGC, either by using existing terrorism legislation or by creating a new process of proscription for hostile state actors. When will the Foreign Secretary act?
Mr David Lammy (Tottenham) (Lab)
Last week, in response to my urgent question, the Government admitted that there was no ministerial oversight when they granted a sanctions waiver to Putin warlord Yevgeny Prigozhin enabling him to launch a legal attack on a British journalist. The Treasury conceded that it would consider changing the rules. What is the Foreign Office doing to ensure that the sanctions regime is never undermined in that way again?
Oral Answers to Questions
Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and David Lammy(1 year, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr David Lammy (Tottenham) (Lab)
Labour has been calling for a special tribunal to prosecute Putin personally since March. This is a necessary part of securing justice for the victims of Putin’s war crime, and would add to the legal basis for confiscating frozen Russian assets. The EU has already set out a plan to shift frozen assets into a fund to help rebuild Ukraine, and Canada has already passed laws to do that. Why are the Government not doing the same?
Mr David Lammy (Tottenham) (Lab)
For 18 months we have been at an impasse on the Northern Ireland protocol. Instead of negotiations, we have had cheap rhetoric and threats to break agreements. With a UK Government showing determination and diplomatic skill, and an EU willing to be flexible, these problems would be easily resolvable. Is the real problem that the Prime Minister is in the pocket of the European Research Group, too weak to stand up to his Back Benchers, and putting his party before Northern Ireland?
Mr David Lammy (Tottenham) (Lab)
Last week, the courageous Dunn family finally secured some justice for Harry, but the disrespect that they received from Ministers at the FCDO was a disgrace. Given the latest allegations that a bullying Tory Minister caused delays to Afghan evacuations, does the Foreign Secretary accept the need for an independent review of whether there has been a toxic culture at the FCDO that is undermining Britain on the global stage?
Oral Answers to Questions
Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and David Lammy(2 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr David Lammy (Tottenham) (Lab)
Let me return to Alaa Abdel Fattah, a British citizen and democracy campaigner who was imprisoned in Egypt for sharing a Facebook post. His mother waited outside Wadi el-Natrun prison on Monday for the weekly letter from her son, but no letter came out. He has stopped drinking water and his life is now in grave danger. For too long, the Government’s diplomacy has been weak. The Prime Minister raised the case yesterday but failed to secure consular access before he did so. What diplomatic price has Egypt paid for denying the right of consular access to a British citizen? Will the Minister make it clear that there will be serious diplomatic consequences if access is not granted immediately and Alaa is not released and reunited with his family?
Oral Answers to Questions
Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and David Lammy(2 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Speaker
Order. That is not relevant to this question. I thought that there must be something somewhere, but I cannot spot it. Let us go to the shadow Foreign Secretary, David Lammy.
Mr David Lammy (Tottenham) (Lab)
We are facing a cost of living crisis in which bills are sky-rocketing and people across the country will face the choice between eating or heating. Instead of proposing a solution, the Conservatives have spent the summer ramping up the rhetoric on the protocol, to risk new trade barriers with Europe. This Minister has had a recent elevation. Will he take this opportunity to commit to scrapping the reckless Northern Ireland Protocol Bill so that the Government can begin serious negotiations with the EU to fix the protocol and avoid hitting the British public in their pockets?
Graham Stuart
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for yet again making it so crystal clear, both to the House and to the British public, that in any dispute he and his party will always side with the EU and not with the interests of the British people. [Interruption.] As he says, I am horribly new to this brief. The first thing I did on the first weekend after my appointment was to read the protocol. It does not matter how we look at it, the protocol is not functioning and it is not working. For him and his party to suggest that it is us and not the EU that needs to change tack shows that, yet again, he betrays the British people and shows why Labour now, in the past and in the future is unfit for office.
Mr David Lammy (Tottenham) (Lab)
As has been said, the appalling floods in Pakistan, which have affected more than 30 million people, show that the climate crisis is not a future problem—it is here and it is now. Despite the Minister’s bluster a moment ago, it is incredibly concerning that the new Conservative Prime Minister has said that she will impose a temporary moratorium on the green levies that we need to reach net zero. Will the Minister commit to doubling our commitments to net zero, so that the UK can lead from the front to build a green and secure future?
Vicky Ford
We have doubled our commitment to climate to £11.6 billion. That is helping people across the world to access clean energy, to reduce deforestation, to protect oceans and to build clean infrastructure. As the right hon. Gentleman is aware, when the new Prime Minister comes in, she will be announcing plans to help to tackle the issues with food prices and fuel prices in this country as a top priority, and also to look at the long-term needs of our energy security. He will need to wait, with the rest of us, for those announcements—but she has promised them as a top priority.
Women’s Rights to Reproductive Healthcare: United States
Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and David Lammy(2 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr David Lammy (Tottenham) (Lab)
I am sure the whole House is grateful to my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Dame Diana Johnson) for asking the urgent question and to you, Mr Speaker, for granting the application.
The great story of the 20th century is how different groups, who were historically denied their rights, won those rights for the first time through protest, organisation and democracy. Those groups included working people, and our party is partly a consequence of that; ethnic minorities, which brings me to the Chamber today; LGBTQ people, in the week in which we celebrate Pride; and women. Heroic leaders of the feminist movement, such as Emmeline Pankhurst, secured women’s right to vote after two major concessions, in 1918 and 1928. For decades, women could choose which political party to support, but did not have the freedom to choose what to do with their own bodies. It was a story of women criminalised, back alleys and a black market, illegal abortions, dirty implements, disease, prison and death. It is a plight that affected women across the globe, certainly in our own country, and it affected poor women particularly, including my late mother.
It was not until 1967 that women in Britain won the right to a safe and legal abortion. In 1973, the United States followed. It is an abomination that, almost 50 years later, 36 million women in 26 American states were stripped of their right when Roe v. Wade was overturned. In America, an organised hard-right and global political movement is seeking to overturn rights hard won in the 20th century. That is happening in our country too. In 2019, 99 Westminster MPs voted to keep abortion illegal in Northern Ireland, and the Minister for Brexit Opportunities and Government Efficiency, the right hon. Member for North East Somerset (Mr Rees-Mogg) says he is “completely opposed” to abortion.
Will the Minister confirm that the UK will make representations at the United Nations? The UK is a signatory to the universal declaration on human rights, so why has the Foreign Secretary said nothing about this issue? Will the Minister confirm that as the United States Agency for International Development surely departs—
Mr Speaker
Order. I allowed the UQ, because I thought it was important, but the right hon. Member should not take advantage of the rules. Two minutes means two minutes. I keep telling both sides, but Front Benchers get carried away. I have all these Back Benchers, who matter to me, that I need to get in. I remind the shadow Secretary of State that I expect him to stick to two minutes, and just ignoring me does not help.
Oral Answers to Questions
Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and David Lammy(2 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr David Lammy (Tottenham) (Lab)
As the Secretary of State knows, 10 days ago I visited Afghanistan. Millions face starvation. One widow whose husband was murdered during the Taliban takeover explained that she was so desperate for money that she had considered selling her kidneys so that she could eat. Meanwhile, conflict continues to rage across the world in Yemen, Lebanon, Ethiopia, Mali and of course Ukraine. Given the scale of the conflicts across the world and the hunger crisis being driven across the world, why is humanitarian aid down by 35% on pre-cut levels? Why are we the only member of the G7 cutting foreign aid, and what impact will this have on our national interests and reputation abroad?
Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe: Forced Confession
Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and David Lammy(2 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Mr David Lammy (Tottenham) (Lab)
I am grateful to you, Mr Speaker, for granting the urgent question, and I think that the whole House is hugely grateful for the tenacity of my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Kilburn (Tulip Siddiq).
It is right that the whole House celebrated when Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe was finally released after four and a half years in unlawful and cruel detention by the Iranian authorities, but it remains the case that this Government, and particularly the Prime Minister, have serious questions to answer over their gross mishandling of the detention of her and other British nationals in Iran. Nazanin said herself that the Prime Minister’s mistakes had had a “lasting impact”, and that she had “lived in the shadow” of them for four and a half years.
We recognise the sensitive and difficult negotiations that led to the agreement for Nazanin’s release, but it is incredibly concerning that she was forced to sign a last-minute false confession as a condition of her release. Did the UK Government agree to that condition, and if so, was it the Foreign Secretary or another official who signed it off? What is the Government’s assessment of how the confession could be used by the Iranian Government against Nazanin in the future?
The Government must also answer the questions about their failure to secure the release of the British-Iranian Morad Tahbaz, who remains languishing in an Iranian jail. Tahbaz’s family were repeatedly told by senior politicians and officials at the Foreign Office that he would be included in any release deal, but that clearly did not happen. In the House on Wednesday 16 March, when I asked the Foreign Secretary about Tahbaz’s case, she said:
“we have secured his release on furlough. He is now at home.”—[Official Report, 16 March 2022; Vol. 710, c. 945.]
However, Tahbaz’s family have made it clear that that is untrue. He was released for a mere 48 hours, and has since been returned to the “abhorrent and appalling” conditions of prison.
It is shameful that Iran continues to use Tahbaz as a pawn. I wrote to the Foreign Secretary about it, and I received a response this morning. I thank her for that response—received within the last hour—but we must have transparency. Can the Minister tell us why Morad Tahbaz has not been able to return home to the UK alongside Nazanin and Anoosheh Ashoori, as his family were promised? What progress is being made on securing Tahbaz’s release, and what progress has there been on securing his release to the UK, as was privately promised? Finally, what progress is being made on securing a visa for his wife to end the current travel ban?
Oral Answers to Questions
Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and David Lammy(2 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr David Lammy (Tottenham) (Lab)
The last few weeks have seen spiralling tension and violence in Israel and Palestine, with a dozen Israelis killed in a spate of horrific terrorist attacks and more than 20 Palestinians killed in response, including the senseless killing of a teenager and a human rights lawyer. We remain resolutely committed to the goal of a two-state solution, but it feels a very distant prize at present. Can I ask the Minister what she is doing to try to remove the barriers to peace, including ensuring respect of holy sites such as the al-Aqsa mosque, preventing Hamas rocket attacks, ending the expansion of illegal settlements and finally recognising Palestine as a state?
Amanda Milling
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his question, and we are deeply concerned about the very fragile security situation. We are working actively with key partners, including members of the UN Security Council, and both parties to encourage de-escalation of tensions. As he says, there have been some horrific attacks, and we do want to see the situation de-escalated. We are having those conversations to ensure that we play our part in preventing further escalation.
Mr David Lammy (Tottenham) (Lab)
To isolate Putin on the global stage, we must build the largest possible coalition against his illegal war. India is one country that has so far stayed neutral. The Prime Minister spent last week in India, but No. 10 admitted that he failed even to mention India’s neutrality in his meeting with Prime Minister Modi. That follows the Foreign Secretary’s own failed trip to India where she failed to demonstrate any progress in bringing India into the international coalition condemning Putin’s aggression against Ukraine. Will the Foreign Secretary explain that failure and commit to asking her counterparts in India to oppose Putin’s barbaric war?
Oral Answers to Questions
Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and David Lammy(2 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr David Lammy (Tottenham) (Lab)
Two weeks into this awful war, Ukraine has suffered terribly but stands defiant. Putin is isolated, his economy is in freefall and his actions are condemned around the world. We are united in our desire to ratchet up pressure on Putin, but the UK has sanctioned just eight of the Navalny 35 list of oligarchs. The EU has sanctioned 19 and the US has sanctioned 15. We welcome the Government’s U-turn on sanctions legislation yesterday, which should help us to catch up, but sanctions against oligarchs work only if we know where their wealth is hidden. Will the Government commit to urgently reforming Companies House, to leave Putin-linked crooks with nowhere to hide?
Afghanistan Humanitarian Crisis: UK Response
Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and David Lammy(2 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr David Lammy (Tottenham) (Lab)
Let me start by thanking my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell) for securing a vital urgent question.
This is not the first time that I have risen to my feet to speak about the humanitarian disaster faced by the people of Afghanistan; nor do I believe that it will be the last. The Opposition have warned continually and forcefully of the catastrophe that is unfolding before our very eyes. We warned that the country was heading towards a humanitarian cliff edge. We warned that tens of millions of Afghans faced imminent starvation, including millions of children. We warned that the situation would ultimately deteriorate as the country heads into a freezing winter. The response from the Government has been sorely, sorely lacking.
Quite simply, the international community has turned its back on ordinary Afghan people in their time of greatest need. Rather than a stepping up to the plate on the international stage, we have seen a complete withdrawal. It is a scandal that so far all the Government have offered is finally to send the money that it promised, by March. This was money pledged at the beginning of the disaster; things are now much worse. It is no good the Government saying that they have doubled aid when they halved it the previous year. The UK’s financial support for Afghanistan is at the same level as it was in 2019, when there was no impending catastrophe on this scale. Worse still, the Government have so far made no commitment to putting forward any of the additional $4.4 billion asked for by the UN.
This catastrophe will continue to get worse without a co-ordinated international response. It is a moral imperative that we act swiftly to help Afghanistan at its time of greatest need. We know the money can reach the people in need if directed through the United Nations and other partners, so I ask the Minister the following. What communications has she had with her European counterparts on hosting the global pledging conference suggested by me, our former Prime Minister Gordon Brown and my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Preet Kaur Gill)? What representations has she made to free up the $1.2 billion sitting in the World Bank that could be used to pay the wages of Afghan healthcare workers and teachers? Will she commit here today to donate the additional funds to the UN appeal for which the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield called? If so, how much?
The appalling scenes in Afghanistan should not divide the opinion of the House. I plead with the Government to do the right and moral thing and urgently step up their response to this unfolding tragedy.
Oral Answers to Questions
Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and David Lammy(2 years, 12 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr David Lammy (Tottenham) (Lab)
Thank you very much, Mr Speaker.
The deaths of 27 people should have acted as a sobering moment for the British and French Governments. These were human beings, not migrants, but instead both Governments have engaged in a petty public spat. This incompetence is costing lives. How can the Government hope to maintain good relations around the world with a Prime Minister who is more interested in burning bridges than building them?
Oral Answers to Questions
Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and David Lammy(3 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Speaker
Chris Stephens is not here, so I call the shadow Justice Secretary, David Lammy.
Mr David Lammy (Tottenham) (Lab)
Thank you very much, Mr Speaker.
In the middle of a pandemic, the Secretary of State’s Government are prioritising attacking the Human Rights Act and judicial review, disenfranchising millions of voters with the Elections Bill on voter ID, and, now, threatening to break international law to make it harder for asylum seekers, including those from Afghanistan, to find sanctuary in Britain. The new president of the Law Society recently warned that those measures put respect for the rule of law in jeopardy in the UK. What does the Secretary of State say to the president of the Law Society?
Mr David Lammy (Tottenham) (Lab)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker.
Mr Lammy
Yes, Mr Speaker.
In oral questions, the whole House expressed tremendous concern about the situation that faces Afghan judges. In response to my question earlier, the Secretary of State for Justice said that he has not been written to by me once about judges in Afghanistan, in reference to my role as shadow Secretary of State for Justice. With all graciousness, I ask the Secretary of State to correct the record: I wrote to him on 16 August—I have the letter in front of me and it is available online—and he replied to me on 25 August.
Robert Buckland
Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. I am happy to correct the record and, of course, to apologise to the right hon. Gentleman. I remind him that I am more than happy to speak directly to him. He will know that the urgency of this situation means that phone calls and texts are absolutely acceptable, and I would be more than happy to discuss the matter with him in that way. As you know, Mr Speaker, this has been a very busy time, and I hope the House will forgive me if on this occasion I got it wrong. I do apologise to the right hon. Gentleman.
End-to-end Rape Review
Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and David Lammy(3 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr David Lammy (Tottenham) (Lab)
Last week, the Secretary of State took the bold step of saying that he was “sorry” and “deeply ashamed” for how he and his Government had failed rape victims. “Sorry” is a word that we do not hear often in this House, and we certainly do not hear it enough. It is, frankly, a difficult word for politicians to say, but when a politician says sorry, it means they are taking responsibility and expressing regret for mistakes that have caused large swathes of the public to suffer.
The Secretary of State was right to apologise, but his apology has been made meaningless by his attempt to avoid taking responsibility over the weekend. Under his watch, the conviction and prosecution rates for rapists have fallen to a record low. In the year 2016-17, there were 41,616 rapes recorded in England and Wales—a third less than currently—and there were 5,090 prosecutions and 2,991 convictions. In 2019-20, the most recent year for which we have available data, the police recorded 55,130 rapes but there were only 2,102 prosecutions and 1,439 convictions. Rape convictions and prosecutions more than halved in just a few years, even despite the number of recorded rapes having rocketed upwards.
It is impossible to separate those appalling statistics from the decade of Conservative cuts that have accompanied them. Funding for the Ministry of Justice has fallen by 25% since 2010. When asked by the BBC whether the removal of funding for legal services was linked to the downward trends, the Secretary of State admitted that that is “self-evidently the case.” Ten years of cuts to the courts, legal aid, police and the Crown Prosecution Service have created an environment in which victims are denied justice and criminals are let off the hook. The Lord Chancellor swore an oath
“to ensure the provision of resources for the efficient and effective support of the courts”;
clearly, he has failed.
After we have waited two years for the review to be published, its recommendations do not go far enough. Despite the Secretary of State’s having admitted that his funding cuts helped to cause the crisis, almost no new funding at all is announced in the review. The review lumps in spending on domestic violence and rape as a headline to misrepresent the truth; the reality is that the vast majority of the funding for refuge accommodation—which is of course vital—has nothing to do with increasing rape prosecutions or convictions. The only mention of new funding is the £4 million over two years for independent sexual violence advisers. That equates to £15 per rape victim for a year. Does the Secretary of State really think that is enough funding to address the failings that the report sets out?
The review mentions the pre-recording of evidence for intimidated victims, which is a vital reform, but why are the Government re-piloting the scheme for a further two years when they have piloted it twice already? Does the Secretary of State doubt that the current two-to-three-year waiting list to get a rape case to court is leading to many dropping out? Why are the Government not funding specialist units for rape cases throughout the country? The pilot in Avon and Somerset has been successful, but the Government are going to roll it out for only one year, among just four more police forces—more piecemeal pilots and nowhere near enough funding and long-term commitment to make any real impact. We know the problems, we have the answers and the technology is in place—what is the hold-up?
As the Opposition spokesman, it is my job to hold the Secretary of State to account. For his apology to have meaning, it needs accountability alongside it. In their rape review, the Government outline their commitment to return the volume of cases being referred by the police and charged by the Crown Prosecution Service and then going to court to at least
“2016 levels by the end of this Parliament.”
We in the Opposition said that by the end of this Parliament is not good enough. Rape victims cannot be forced to wait another three years for conviction and prosecution levels to return to 2016 levels. We demanded that the Secretary of State met the target within a year, but, bafflingly, his response was to describe such a target as “constitutionally illiterate”. We know that this failure affects several Departments. We know that the Crown Prosecution Service is independent, with oversight by the Attorney General’s office. We know that the police are overseen by the Home Office. But we also know that the health of the justice system as a whole has a huge impact on the likelihood of a victim pressing charges, the police charging a suspect and a conviction being secured. Victims are facing delays because of the Justice Department’s cuts to the courts and legal aid, and it is because of those delays that 44% of rape victims are pulling out of the justice system altogether.
In describing such a target as constitutionally illiterate, the Secretary of State suggested that the record low prosecution and conviction rates for rapes were out of his hands. That runs counter to his previous apology in which he took responsibility for them. Does he, or does he not, take responsibility for this Government’s hollowing out of the justice system? If not, does he intend to take his apology back? Do the Government intend to meet their target of returning the number of rapists who face justice to 2016 levels, or have they done a U-turn and scrapped that target?
The Secretary of State cannot show disdain for the constitution whenever it suits him and then blame the constitution when he is trying to defend his own failings. Enough is enough. Will he reverse these failures within a year, or will he resign?
Mr Speaker
This is a very, very important subject and it is quite right that we are having this statement, but there are other Members besides those on the Front Benches whom I need to hear from. It is important to all colleagues to get on the record, so please, whether we are talking about the Minister or the shadow Minister, we must stick to the time that the House has agreed to. It is not what I have agreed to, but what the House and Members have signed up to. Please, let us ensure that everybody gets a fair chance.
Hillsborough: Collapse of Trials
Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and David Lammy(3 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Mr David Lammy (Tottenham) (Lab)
I am very grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Garston and Halewood (Maria Eagle), who has been at these issues in this House for 24 years on behalf of her constituents and others.
The Secretary of State will know that inquests have since found that 96 victims were unlawfully killed by the negligence of others. The authorities who were supposed to protect the 96 that day instead failed them. More than five years ago, the South Yorkshire police commander in charge on the day of the Hillsborough disaster admitted not only that he had inadequate experience to oversee the safety of the 54,000 people, not only that he accepted responsibility for the deaths, but that he lied, telling the then secretary of the Football Association that Liverpool fans should be blamed for getting entry through a large exit gate when, in fact, he ordered the gate to be opened himself. These lies—these pernicious, ugly mistruths—have caused incredible pain to the families of the 96, who were already in despair and obviously experiencing grief.
The collapse of the most recent case at the end of last month is yet another kick in the gut for the families of all those who lost loved ones at Hillsborough. It is nothing less than a national scandal that not one person responsible has been punished or held to account in the criminal justice system for these deadly failures. The lack of justice in this case is undermining the very concept of a public inquiry. After a tragedy like this, the system only works where there is good faith. There is clearly bad faith in respect of the Hillsborough tragedy, and we must legislate so that this can never happen again.
The travesty of Hillsborough is not a one-off. We can see parallels in the experience that the Grenfell families are going through at this time. Do the Government now accept that they need to change the law? Another tragedy, another 32 years of injustice—we clearly need to do something. This does not have to be a partisan issue. The former Prime Minister, as we have heard, yesterday expressed the need for legislative change after the most recent trial collapsed because, although it was accepted that police evidence had been altered, it did not constitute perversion of the course of justice as it was evidenced to a public inquiry. Authorities must be held to account and victims must be given the support that they need. The proposals to ensure that this takes place—the Public Advocate Bill and the Public Authority (Accountability) Bill—are ready to go. We cannot have more cover-ups, more lies and more pain for bereaved families. Truth and justice matter. Will the Secretary of State today commit to working cross-party to change the law not only to secure justice for the families of the 96, but to ensure that this does not and cannot ever happen again?
Serious Criminal Cases Backlog
Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and David Lammy(3 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Speaker
Before I call the right hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy) to ask his urgent question, I remind all hon. Members participating in these exchanges that it is important that no reference should be made to individual cases in a way that prejudices current and prospective criminal proceedings.
Mr David Lammy (Tottenham) (Lab) (Urgent Question)
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice if he will make a statement on the backlog of serious criminal cases in the justice system.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Chris Philp)
The covid pandemic is truly unprecedented. It has affected every corner of our lives—from hospital operations delayed, to schools closed, to businesses struggling and even to how Parliament itself operates, we have seen covid’s effects. The court system is no different: bringing people safely into buildings for trials—especially jury trials—and hearings is a difficult thing to do. That is why so much has been done to keep delivering justice in these difficult times.
We have invested £142 million in upgrading court buildings and technology, alongside £110 million to increase capacity, making an investment of over a quarter of a billion pounds in court recovery this year. We are hiring 1,600 extra staff. We have opened 19 new Nightingale courts, with 35 new courtrooms. As of today, we have over 290 covid-safe jury trial courtrooms—substantially more than before the pandemic. We have installed plexiglass screens in 450 courts to protect users. We have installed cloud video platform technology in 150 magistrates courts and 70 Crown courts, allowing 20,000 remote hearings per week.
In the first lockdown, and as these measures have been put into place, backlogs have, understandably, developed. That has been the case across the world. But the fruits of our labours are now being seen. We have been faster than almost every jurisdiction to recover and we believe that we were the first country in the world to restart jury trials, back in May. Since August, the magistrates court backlog has been relentlessly reducing, month on month. Crown court jury trials are obviously much harder, for reasons of social distancing, but even there, in the last four weeks before Christmas, Crown court disposals exceeded receipts for the first time since covid began. At this very moment, as we stand here, about 230 jury trials are taking place. The joint inspectors’ report said earlier this week:
“It is a real testament to the criminal justice system that in spite of the pandemic…service was maintained.”
I pay tribute to the judges, magistrates, jurors, witnesses, victims, lawyers, court staff, Crown Prosecution Service staff and Ministry of Justice officials who have made that monumental effort to deliver justice in spite of covid.
We will not rest. We are adding more courtrooms, further increasing remote hearings, and examining options for longer operating hours. We are also taking action to mitigate the impact on victims and witnesses, this year providing an extra £32 million of funding and next year an extra £25 million of funding, including for rape and domestic violence victims.
This year has been incredibly difficult in the courts, as in so many places, but through a monumental, collective effort the system is recovering. The recovery will gather strength and pace with every day that passes, and I know that everyone in the House will support that work.
Mr Lammy
We all know the numbers. The backlog of criminal cases in the Crown court has grown to more than 54,000. Including the magistrates courts, it has reached more than 457,000 cases. Serious criminal cases are being delayed by up to four years. Convictions are at by far their lowest this decade. Estimates show that the current scale of increase in the backlog would take 10 years to clear at pre-pandemic rates.
Numbers do not tell the whole story. Behind criminal cases, there are victims: victims of rape, robbery, domestic abuse, and violent assault. Each of those victims is being denied the speedy justice that our society owes them. It has been repeated many times, but it is true: justice delayed is justice denied. This is not just the case because of the pain that delays cause victims and the wrongly accused—it is because delays to justice can affect the verdict.
On Tuesday, four criminal justice watchdogs for England and Wales warned of “grave concerns” about the impact of court backlogs. Victims and witnesses may avoid the justice system entirely because of the delays. Witnesses may be unable to recall events properly many years after the event. As a responsible Opposition, we accept that the pandemic has caused unprecedented challenges for the justice system. However, we do not accept the Government’s presentation of the backlog as a crisis that has resulted only from coronavirus. Before the pandemic, the Crown court backlog stood at 39,000 cases.
That figure was the result of sustained attacks on the justice system by successive Conservative Governments: an entire decade of court closures, cuts and reduced sitting days. Blackfriars Crown court was sold off by the Government in December 2019. It is now sitting empty, but it is being rented out as a film set by the developer for a new series of “Top Boy”. The Minister said “recovery”, but meanwhile the Government are paying through the nose for Nightingale courts a stone’s throw away.
Six hundred court staff, judges, lawyers and jurors have tested positive for covid-19 in the past seven weeks. A pilot scheme of lateral flow tests has now been authorised at only two courts in London and Manchester. A pilot scheme is not good enough, and neither is the plexiglass. Why have lateral flow tests not been implemented across the court system? The Minister knows that that is a serious problem and that we are a long way from recovery. Can he tell the House why the pitiful 19 Nightingale courts that he has managed to deliver fall so short of the 200 that Her Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service said were needed? Can he tell the House why lateral flow tests are not being trialled across the whole country? After 11 years of incompetence and cuts, will he admit that his Government failed to fix the roof while the sun was shining?
Oral Answers to Questions
Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and David Lammy(4 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr David Lammy (Tottenham) (Lab)
I am very grateful, Mr Speaker. It is nice to be back.
I am grateful to the Secretary of State for giving me two detailed briefings since I took office. He announced on 4 April—coincidentally, the day the Labour party elected a new leader—that he wanted to introduce a release scheme for up to 4,000 prisoners. Can he update the House on how many prisoners have been released and how many prison officers and staff and prisoners have sadly lost their lives?
Joint Enterprise
Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and David Lammy(6 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr David Lammy (Tottenham) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend recognise that where 14, 16 and 19-year-olds have gone to prison for significant periods of time when it is absolutely clear to the community that they have not committed murder, as happened in her community of Moss Side, it undermines the black community’s sense of justice, fewer people co-operate with the police, fewer people have faith in the justice system and it undermines all she is attempting to do?
Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. I hope to give everybody 10 minutes. If Members intervene, the danger is that I will have to drop the time limit immediately.
Higher Education and Research Bill
Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and David LammyTuesday 19th July 2016
(8 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Higher Education and Research Act 2017 View all Higher Education and Research Act 2017 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
I might be able to help a little, as the hon. Lady is hoping to catch my eye next. Mr Lammy, your speech has taken about 14 minutes so far, and I did advise Members to take about 12 minutes. I am sure your contribution will be coming to an end very shortly.
Mr Lammy
Transparency will of course help, but we know what works and under the Labour Government most of that was covered by the Aimhigher programme which, sadly, was abolished by this Government.
Do we want our universities to be engines of social mobility or do we accept that the universities will merely reinforce and embed the inequality of opportunity that pervades our society? That is the central question and that is the test against which this Bill should be held. Of course, we welcome some of the changes that will establish a new improved body for what was the Office for Fair Access, but the points made so far in this debate about teaching are particularly well made. To link teaching to the labour market when universities’ purview is not entirely about the labour market is worrying, and to preference funding alongside that teaching is, I think, suspect. I certainly want to hear the Minister say more about that and I hope that issue receives more scrutiny in Committee.
The question is: is this Bill the right one now given the Brexit challenge? Is it really going to make a change beyond that on transparency about fair access? I hope the Minister will come back to that point. And is it right, on the teaching question alone, to put all the burdens on universities in relation to the labour market, and certainly to allow them to charge more for teaching when that ought to be at the heart of what a university does anyway?
HEALTH
Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and David Lammy(11 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
I can reassure the hon. Gentleman that will be the case and that Mrs Hoyle will be very impressed.
Mr David Lammy (Tottenham) (Lab)
I think that the hon. Member for Central Devon (Mel Stride) has reduced the number of Christmas cards he needs to send this year—the rest of us have taken note for next year. I congratulate him on his remarks.
Many hon. Members have seen fit to talk about our armed services this Christmas and to help us reflect on those serving abroad. It is right then, as I begin my contribution, to recognise that Christmas is a time when families come together and people often drink quite a lot. In those circumstances, we should also reflect on the police service, because sadly there are accidents on our roads, scenes in our clubs and bars and, as is sometimes the case in family life, there are domestic disputes, which increase over the Christmas period. Our police will absolutely be on duty this year, as they always are.
Sadly, in the past two years London Metropolitan Police Service has lost 16% of its work force. Thanks to the coalition Government’s cuts of 20%, the Met faces a £148 million shortfall over the coming year, which is equivalent to 2,690 officers. Of great concern to Londoners at the moment—indeed, it is in this afternoon’s Evening Standard—is the fact that London looks set to lose many of its police stations, moving from 133 24-hour police stations across the capital to 71.
Hon. Members will recognise that some London boroughs are very large. The idea that in a London borough such as Lambeth, or Hackney, or Haringey, which stretches from Highgate and Muswell Hill right across to the corner of Tottenham, Edmonton and up to Finsbury Park, there could be only one 24-hour station is hugely alarming. I fear that the Mayor’s understanding of helping to reduce crime might be helping to reduce the ability of the public to report crime, which is what will happen if this set of closures goes ahead.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. The clock does not tick during interventions, so they have to be short. When a Member intervenes, somebody will have to have their time cut at the end, and for those who have already spoken to intervene afterwards is unfair on other Members. The Member who will speak next will be very upset if I put him down the list. We can all work together; it is Christmas, so let us have a bit of good will.
Mr Lammy
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.
Defamation Bill
Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and David Lammy(12 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Lammy
The hon. Gentleman makes that point well. This is about the prominence given to the decision, and the fact that it is often nothing like as prominent as the original story. I do not think that the Bill has cracked that problem, but I hope that, as it passes through the Committee and goes to the other place, the matter will receive further scrutiny.
Much has been said about the internet, and I shall not add to it except to say that I am truly concerned about the position of young people, and young adults, in this regard. Many of us will be aware of Facebook bullying, for example, and I remain concerned that much of what is said about young people and young adults in such forums remains out there. The ability to fail, to make mistakes and to grow up in a private arena seems to have disappeared from our society. All of that now seems to be done in public. A lot of what used to be said by young people in the pub at the age of 17 or 18 would just disappear. Now, nothing disappears. It is visible for all to see. Many of us might have exercised this when employing a researcher. It is all there, and that is a matter of huge concern. Kicking this matter into secondary legislation is a concern, because it merits hard discussion. This relates to some of the issues being raised in Leveson, and those being raised in relation to privacy. The Joint Committee conducted its deliberations against the backdrop of super-injunctions and the issues that had arisen on the Twitter network just a few months ago.
The Bill is obviously needed, and it is good, but there are elements missing. Those elements were highlighted in the work of the Joint Committee and of Lord Lester, and I hope that they will garner greater scrutiny in the weeks and months ahead.
Betting Shops
Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and David Lammy
Mr David Lammy (Tottenham) (Lab)
On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. It has been the manner of the House that, before making a speech, one declares an interest. We have just heard a speech by the hon. Member for Tewkesbury (Mr Robertson) and it is my understanding that he has a role supported by the betting industry. It should have been declared before his contribution, which, frankly, felt like a speech that had been written by the industry itself.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
That is not a matter for the Chair; it is a matter for each Member to decide whether they feel it is relevant to declare their interest.
Finance (No. 3) Bill
Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and David Lammy(13 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Lammy
On a point of order, Mr Hoyle. In Committee, when Ministers have not answered questions from Back Benchers, is it normal for them not even to give way? Surely the Financial Secretary could simply photocopy what he is reading out, and send that to all of us so we can go home?
The Chairman
That is not a point of order. It is up to the Minister to decide how he wishes to reply to the debate.
Localism Bill
Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and David Lammy(13 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. If the right hon. Gentleman is not giving way, the hon. Gentleman cannot stay on his feet and keep on asking; instead he must sit back down.
Mr Lammy
It is clear from clause 97 that there are excessive charges in bringing in a neighbourhood plan. How are ordinary people in Tottenham—the very same people whose housing benefit is being cut, and who on the basis of the coalition’s plans are to be turfed off jobseeker’s allowance if they do not find a job—going to be able to pay the charges to bring in a neighbourhood plan and thereby be able to determine the look, shape and feel of their high street? Those are the questions my constituents will want to ask, particularly against the backdrop of this Bill also introducing the end of secured tenancy.
Tottenham has the highest homelessness rate in London, and it is a shame that this Administration seem to assume that our landlords are paragons of virtue. These proposals will lead to overcrowding in London. They will lead to the kinds of scenes we see in cities such as Paris. I predict that harm will come to communities because of this atrocious part of the Bill. I welcome the neighbourhood plan and I look forward to questioning in detail what it means for communities like mine, but I condemn a situation in which we are casting the very poorest of Londoners on to the streets and into overcrowded living conditions, with landlords who will surely prey on them.
Academies Bill [Lords]
Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and David Lammy(14 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr David Lammy (Tottenham) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to follow my London colleague, the hon. Member for Croydon Central (Gavin Barwell), who has some very strong schools in his constituency. I am also pleased to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Wigan (Lisa Nandy), who made an excellent speech.
I hope that Members on both sides of the House agree that the street in which someone was born should not determine their educational achievement. Success is always at the heart of educational discussion in the House and, for most communities, success has five ingredients. One is of course education. The second is employment, as a result, I hope, of that education. The third is a culture of aspiration. The fourth is parenting, and, for those without parents or who have problematic parents, there will be youth workers in loco parentis and others in the voluntary sector in the community coming alongside. The fifth is community. I hope that, when we think about the role of local education authorities in the debate tonight, we will acknowledge that all those ingredients can come together to make a difference. This is not just about the schools but about the youth services provided alongside the school that the local authority is in charge of delivering. It is not just about the status or structure of a school, or whether it is an academy or not, but about how we reach into communities, lift aspiration and ensure that all young people can achieve their dreams.
Against that backdrop, the fact that just 14% of the young people in my constituency were getting five good GCSEs when we came to power in 1997 can only be described as despairing, decaying and, to some extent, the road to doom. That meant that 86% were getting fewer than that. We were sending more young people to prison than to university, and that was replicated in some of the most deprived constituencies in the country. We should reflect deeply on that when we talk about the importance of education to life outcomes.
The nature of our debates on education over the years reveals a preoccupation with structure. For my party, following the Butler Act in 1944, much of that preoccupation consisted of our deep hostility to grammar schools and our desire for a comprehensive system in which all young people would be of equal worth, and would have comprehensive access to quality education across the country. Some Conservative Members—perhaps because of their proximity to independent schools—seem to suggest that the state system should be freed and given the ability to innovate, to replicate the arrangements in the independent sector. References have been made to the changes that we have made in governing bodies, as well as to grant-maintained status and direct control. That is all about structure.
The great achievement of the Labour Government over the past 13 years was—yes, of course—to make some changes to the structure and to introduce academies, but particularly to have an eye on quality and standards, and to get into the classroom, and to be alongside teachers and head teachers in driving up quality. One Conservative Member disparaged classroom assistants, but they serve to provide two or three adults in a classroom to help to drive up those standards. Excellence in schools was about developing pedagogy, particularly to drive up standards for those who had been consistently left behind. Over the years, we have debated the challenges that exist for white, disaffected communities and, as the hon. Member for Croydon Central pointed out, for black boys, in order to drive those standards up. We were engaged in those schools, and the figure of 14% in my constituency that I mentioned earlier is today 66%. That is what we have achieved. It means that when I served as the Minister for Higher Education, I served in a constituency where we had seen not just a small rise in young people going to university, but one of almost 100% in constituents going to university, and in young people making their way to apprenticeships.
That is hugely important, as these are the very same families who, as we think back to the 1980s, had parents or older brothers and sisters streamed off to do the CSE exam—one in which they could not achieve their best in the way others doing GCE O-levels could. That left its mark—one that we have often attempted to correct with our emphasis on basic skills, numeracy, literacy, unionlearn, and the community response to education as well. It is not just about structure; it is absolutely about standards.
Standards were at the heart of our drive on academies, concentrating our efforts. There were 188 of them, many of them failing schools in the most deprived areas, and we were giving them a fresh start, renewing them with new buildings. Yes, we gave the new leadership of those schools the freedom to innovate. It was, I think, the emphasis on standards that saw the advances made. Academies were, of course, largely based in inner-city areas. A large proportion of them—27%—served black and ethnic minority communities. There was real innovation in the system.
My concern is the hostility from the Government side to local education authorities. I ask why they are so hostile to our means of pooling resources, bringing them alongside schools, giving them specialist advice, helping them organise admissions and so forth. Local education authorities were set up in 1902 by the Conservatives, and they have served us well. The Bill that we are voting on tonight will pave the way the break-up of local authorities over time.
What will we now say to the schools left behind as schools scramble to get academy status? Let us not pretend that this is not about money. The Department for Education website shows that this is about money because it helps schools model how much more of it they would make. And why primary schools? What evidence is there that primary schools, particularly single-form entry primary schools, are even equipped to take on this extra load?
On that basis, we challenge this new system, which will disperse the efforts and advances made by academies, and we question much that has been said. I am very concerned about the equality impact assessment of the new scheme. We are already seeing in the academies that girls are not making advances, that ethnic minorities are not—