Middle East Update

Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts

Monday 2nd September 2024 Commons Chamber

[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 Speaker]

I call the shadow Foreign Secretary.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Lib Dem spokesperson.

Oral Answers to Questions

Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts

Tuesday 30th July 2024 Commons Chamber

[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 Speaker]

I call the shadow Foreign Secretary.

[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 Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

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

The Secretary of State will get bored of me continuing to press him on the recognition of the state of Palestine. I hope not to test his patience, but I know in my heart that it is what Palestinians need to ignite hope. Two states cannot happen without that hope to unite Palestinians behind a final cause that will stop the killing for good. War has to stop, but that is not peace. Peace is two states. He knows that Netanyahu rejects it, so when he spoke to Netanyahu, did he talk about the two-state solution, and in particular the recognition of Palestine? Does he accept that if the UK followed the other 140 countries that have done this, that would send a powerful message to both the Palestinian people and Netanyahu?

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Doughty]

The right hon. Gentleman is right to raise this important question. We call for the release of all those detained in Russia on political grounds, including those imprisoned for their opposition to Russia’s illegal war in Ukraine. We have met many of the families of those concerned, and we will continue to take this very seriously.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Dame Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)]

May I start by congratulating the Minister on his appointment? I know how hard he worked on this brief in opposition. He will know that the longer those Russian sanctions are in place, the more creative Russia becomes at circumventing them. What steps do he and the Foreign Secretary plan to take to end the UK’s indirect import of Russian crude oil via the three refineries at Jamnagar, Vadinar and New Mangalore? Did the Foreign Secretary discuss that issue when he travelled to see our Commonwealth friends in India last week?

--- Later in debate ---

[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 Speaker]

We now come to shadow Minister Alicia Kearns—welcome.

[Alicia Kearns (Rutland and Stamford) (Con)]

Thank you, Mr Speaker. The Foreign Secretary rightly visited India to discuss a trade agreement between our countries. The Labour party regularly called for human rights to be part of that UK-India trade deal. Will he therefore update the House on whether he secured said agreement during his visit?

On human rights, we on the Conservative Benches welcome the fact that the Foreign Secretary raised with his counterparts the case of Jagtar Singh Johal, a British national whom the UN has determined to be arbitrarily detained, with reports that he was subject to torture. Will the Foreign Secretary confirm before the House today that he still believes, as he did a month ago, that Jagtar is being arbitrarily detained? Will he today publicly call for Jagtar’s release, just as, from this Dispatch Box, he repeatedly urged the last Foreign Secretary to do? Will he meet Jagtar’s family, as Lord Cameron did? Finally, having adopted the Foreign Affairs Committee’s recommendation of a special envoy for Britain’s wrongly detained abroad, when will he announce that somebody has been appointed?

--- Later in debate ---

[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 Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Paul Holmes (Hamble Valley) (Con)]

I welcome the Secretary of State and all Ministers to the Front Bench, and I look forward to working with them. Can the Secretary of State reassure the House that he is working flat out, as were the last Government, on making sure that the roughly £2 billion of funds generated from the sale of Chelsea football club gets distributed urgently, and reaches those in desperate need of humanitarian assistance due to Russia’s illegal invasion of Ukraine? Does he agree that Chelsea FC is effectively now one of the largest charitable organisations in the country, and that the sooner the funds are mobilised, the better?

--- Later in debate ---

[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 Speaker]

I call the shadow Foreign Secretary.

[Mr Andrew Mitchell (Sutton Coldfield) (Con)]

The Foreign Secretary will get full support from the Opposition in imposing open registers of beneficial ownership on the overseas territories.

Can I ask the Foreign Secretary to pay special attention to Sudan, which is suffering the largest displacement crisis in the world? There is clear evidence of ethnic cleansing once again in Darfur, and the human misery that I saw on the border with Chad earlier this year was among the most harrowing that I have ever seen.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Catherine West)]

I thank the hon. Member for his passionate defence of human rights in Kashmir. He of course understands the UK Government’s position that all countries should respect sovereignty, human rights and the rule of law, and we push all parties to work towards upholding United Nations resolutions.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

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

This weekend, we saw an escalation across the UN blue line when Hezbollah and Israel exchanged rocket fire and 12 Druze children tragically lost their lives. One child dying in war is too many, no matter what nationality they may be, but this region is a tinderbox. What is the Foreign Secretary doing to calm the area now that we have seen an escalation, because surely that could be a disaster for the region?

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

International Immunities and Privileges

Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts

Wednesday 24th July 2024 Commons Chamber

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. To clarify, it is not my decision whether to allow interventions; it is up to the Minister. I would say that normally the shadow Secretary of State would get in, but it is up to the Minister whether she gives way.

[Catherine West]

If the shadow Secretary of State wants to say something, I would be happy to allow him, following your advice, Mr Speaker.

--- Later in debate ---

[Catherine West]

Obviously the specifics of the supply chain and so on are not really part of the order, but we are aware that that is an important part of our industrial puzzle, and I am sure that there will be some knock-on benefits for Northern Ireland. The hon. Gentleman is a fierce defender of jobs and opportunities in that wonderful place.

The first duty of Government is to keep the country safe. Under this Government, defence will be central both to the UK’s security and to our economic prosperity and growth, including by harnessing the strength of our well-established defence industry. The GIGO is key to GCAP, and the UK Government continues to make positive progress with our partners Japan and Italy. I commend the order to the House.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Secretary of State for Defence.

--- Later in debate ---

[James Cartlidge]

My right hon. Friend, who not only served on the Committee but was an Armed Forces Minister, makes an excellent point. There are those who argue that we should go beyond 2.5%; I would argue that 2.5% is still a significant jump for this country. We had a funded plan, and that 2.5%—crucially and critically, with the pathway we set out, which became an accumulation of significant additional billions of pounds for the MOD—enabled us to afford GCAP and stabilise that programme.

I want to make one crucial point about the uncrewed domain. To be frank, for the uncrewed side of the Navy, Army and Air Force, those programmes are not funded: hitherto, the funding has come primarily from support for Ukraine. That is entirely logical because, under the defence drone strategy, we were very clear that there is no point in the Army, for example, ordering large-scale drones now; it might order them to train with, but the technology is changing so fast. What we as a country need to build, as I set out in the drone strategy, is the ecosystem to develop those drones, and we are doing that.

I have always said—I said it during my statement on the integrated procurement model—that my most inspiring moment as Defence Procurement Minister was visiting a UK SME that was building a drone for use in Ukraine. It was a highly capable platform, but brilliantly, it was getting feedback and spiralling it—as we call it—the very next day. On GCAP, it should be a technology for the whole of defence—it should be a pan-defence technology of how we team with uncrewed systems, how the Navy fights with an uncrewed fleet above and below the surface, for the Army and of course for the Air Force.

I have two final points on military capability, as a couple of points have been floating around in the press. The first is that the Army is putting out its opposition to GCAP. I find that idea impossible to believe. Of course, if the Army wants to succeed, it needs the support of the Air Force and so on. That is why an integrated approach to procurement is so important, not single service competition. There has also been the point that we should choose between GCAP and AUKUS, as if, when the next war comes, the Russians will step into our dressing room and ask if we would like to bowl or bat: would we like to fight on land or sea—what is our preference? The fact is that we do not know where the threat will come from, but we know that it is growing, so we should support both GCAP and AUKUS, not least for the enormous economic benefit they bring.

You will be pleased to know, Mr Speaker, that that brings me to the last part of my speech, on the economic benefits of GCAP. There are those who say we should buy off the shelf. We would stress how, in a state of ever greater war readiness, it pays to have operational independence and sovereignty. In particular, investing in the great tradition of UK combat air offers huge economic gains for every part of the country.

In 2020, PricewaterhouseCoopers estimated that the Tempest programme alone would support an average of 20,000 jobs every year from 2026 until 2050. Those are well-paid jobs in every constituency up and down the country—including many in Lancashire, as you will know, Mr Speaker. Scrapping GCAP would hit our economy hard. Even delaying or deferring GCAP expenditure would undermine our brilliant aerospace industry, which was on display this past week at the Royal International Air Tattoo in Farnborough, and cast doubt over the vast sums of private investment that are waiting, from which hundreds of UK SMEs stand to benefit.

An interesting point was raised by the Leader of the Opposition when asking the Prime Minister about exports and discussions with the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. It is an incredibly important point. I was clear that, in reforming procurement, we have to have exportability at the heart of it because otherwise industrial supply chains wither. It is as simple as that. The demand from this country is not big enough. This has been the French lesson for many years, which is why they have put so much effort into export, and we need to do the same—whether it is GCAP, or any other platforms or capability manufactured by the United Kingdom.

To undermine GCAP is to undermine our economy, our future war-fighting capability and relations with our closest international partners. The Government should instead embrace GCAP wholeheartedly and confirm that they stand by their previous position of steadfast support. Then they should commit to a clear timetable on 2.5%, so that we can turbocharge the programme by investing not only in the core platform, but in the associated technology of autonomous collaboration and a digital system of systems approach, enabling the mass and rapid absorption of battlespace data.

To conclude, the best way to win the next war is to deter it from happening in the first place. Part of our overall deterrence posture is to signal to our adversaries our preparedness to always be ready to out-compete their technology. How can we send that deterrent signal if we have such mixed messages on our largest conventional military programme? We support this statutory instrument, we support GCAP and we support the powerful gains it will give to the United Kingdom’s economic and military strength.

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Can I gently say that I welcome the very thorough response from the Opposition, but the shadow Minister did take twice as long as the Minister? I do have other speakers on his own side who also want to get in, so please just work to make sure we can get everybody in.

We now come to a maiden speech—I call Calvin Bailey.

[Mr Calvin Bailey (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab)]

I thank the shadow Minister for his speech.

Mr Speaker, thank you very much for giving me this opportunity to speak. It appears that for once my sense of timing has been impeccable. Having completed 24 years and seven months of service in the Royal Air Force, I have arrived on time, uniquely placed as the only person who could sequence their maiden speech in amongst a debate about military aircraft. Unfortunately, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bootle (Peter Dowd) suggested in his riposte to the King’s Speech, I will not be wearing a silk smoking jacket.

It is a life of service to this House that also characterises my predecessor’s career. A loved politician, John Cryer gave 14 years of service to the constituency of Leyton and Wanstead, and nine years as Member for Hornchurch before that. He is a fine parliamentarian and, more importantly, a fine socialist, like his mother and father before him. His incredible commitment to the parliamentary Labour party as its chair for the past nine years was instrumental in helping us get to where we are today. While he now moves on to the other place, I am certain that his children, and his family’s legacy, will follow in his footsteps in years to come.

This sentiment of service is something that resonates deeply with me. Service is fundamental to who I am, and it is fundamental to the Government and to my commitment to the wonderful constituency of Leyton and Wanstead. I am here because my constituents placed their trust in me, a trust for which I am grateful, and will repay with service and a commitment to ensuring they are represented in this place to the fullest of my abilities.

At the centre of my constituency is Leytonstone, at the heart of which is our beloved Whipps Cross hospital. Whipps has served our constituency for 121 years, during which time its NHS staff—quiet professionals—have given selflessly for those in need within our community. Yet this hospital is emblematic of 14 years of failed Tory commitments and lack of investment. Its rebuilding is central to my tenure as an MP.

Leytonstone is also a cradle for talent, having been home to notable figures such as my namesake David Bailey and Cartrain, and sports stars Jo Fenn, Andros Townsend and David Beckham. Leytonstone was the home, of RAF pedigree, of Douglas Webb DFM, the front gunner in the famous dam busters raid, and more lately, of James Sjoberg, Officer Commanding 47 Squadron. Leveraging this rich heritage to inspire our youth and give them pathways to success is a personal commitment of mine. Opportunities like these were scarce for young people like me. Creating similar pathways for our youth will be central to my service.

Leytonstone is also home to one of the most financially deprived areas in the country, but it is a spirited community that seeks to heal itself. Community leadership from Cann Hall mosque ensures the provision to all local people of a much-needed food bank and a youth group. Similarly, at St Margaret with St Columba, others gather to preserve a sense of community despite their obvious hardships.

Community spirit is also strong in South Woodford and Wanstead. If Whipps is the heart of our constituency, Wanstead park is its lungs and the River Roding its veins. Wanstead park is part of our historic Epping forest, which was saved by campaigners such as Octavia Hill, founder of the National Trust, and the spirit of activism and preservation continues in the Wanstead Community Gardeners, the South Woodford Society and the ever popular Wanstead fringe festival.

To the south is Leyton, home of Leyton Orient football club. The O’s and their trust embody the best of our community. From their sacrifices in the pal regiment in the first world war to their work with Waltham Forest Age UK, they support our vulnerable veterans. The club is also proud to celebrate our diverse communities, epitomised by Laurie Cunningham, the club’s first black player. His legacy continues to inspire, as does the leadership of Omar Beckles in improving representation in football. Such leadership is reflective of the club’s leadership in the establishment of governance for our footballing world.

Efforts such as these are key to me. Visible role models and leadership are essential for diverse communities. Without these inspirational characters, young black people like me will not see themselves in places of power. I reflect on the very low number of black men in our politics, despite an increase in representation across all ethnic groups. Addressing this is key to fixing the inequalities that face young people, particularly in the area of knife crime.

A pivotal moment in my upbringing was the murder of Stephen Lawrence. While we are aware of the continuing failure to provide justice to my friend Stuart’s family, we all know of the institutional failings that have led to this. I want to point all Members to a number of things surrounding this that were formative for me. First, the absence of representation inhibits our ability to hear voices and understand the challenges faced by others like us. I reflected during the campaign that when I was young I carried a knife, not because I wished to attack anyone, but because I was scared and felt that the fate that had befallen my friend’s brother could happen to me and others like me. Mistakenly, I assumed that I could look after myself similarly, but sadly, we know that is not the case, and that those who carry knives are more likely to be killed themselves. We need people like me to translate those experiences into policy.

Secondly, and in some ways most importantly, I look back with great upset and anger on how this matter was politicised by extreme groups. Our anger and upset was channelled by populists who manipulated us for their own political ends. Those voices are present in our House and vocal in our politics, and we must challenge them openly to prevent those actors from fostering anger, hate and division within our communities. I fear it is our greatest threat to democracy, and we must be fundamental in our moderation. We must challenge those behaviours without fear, openly, separating them from the underlying issues.

Finally, what saw me through that period in my life, and through a highly decorated flying career in the Royal Air Force, are the two things I value most: first, my friends; and secondly, my family. My mother and father instilled in me the values and virtues of service and humanity; my sisters shaped me and helped me to see the world through the eyes of a woman. My friends shepherded me through school, college and university, and through every difficult challenge in my life. But it is my wife who has supported me steadfastly through a military career and grown our wonderful family. I love her deeply and will never be able to thank her enough.

The reason I am here is my service not just as a Member of this House but to our nation in the RAF. I have chosen to speak in this debate because as a young engineering student I recall learning of the failings of the Duncan Sandys defence review, which did deep and lasting damage to our aerospace industry and industrial base. Already we have heard voices state that our commitment to this programme is a fallacy, but acceptance of that is merely acceptance of a failure to manage defence programmes and the companies contracted to deliver them. It is not GCAP that is a fallacy, but the way we contract and manage such programmes. Our interaction with defence primes must change. We must encourage risk taking, because without it there is no innovation. We must not allow the customer to set the demand for technologies that the customer itself cannot conceive.

We must be a Government who better understand science, and we need an industry that is incentivised with accountability. We have the sixth largest defence budget in the world. We must get our money’s worth, and we must make sure that our money leads to our security and not to excess corporate bonuses. For that reason, the remarks by the Minister for the Armed Forces about the sanctity of the defence review are key. We cannot allow defence simply to be bought out of its overspend. This is an exciting programme with two close and valued partners, and the Government’s defence review is critical to it.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.