British Indian Ocean Territory

Calvin Bailey Excerpts

Wednesday 26th February 2025 Commons Chamber

[Anneliese Dodds]

I do appreciate the kind tone in which the hon. Gentleman expressed his remarks. However, I would say, respectfully, that the running sore is the situation that has led to our country’s national security being subject to legal jeopardy because this issue had not been resolved. The Conservative Government, on whose Benches he sat, had 11 rounds of negotiations with Mauritius on this subject, and this Government have been determined to make progress for the sake of our national security.

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

What was the point of the Conservatives starting a negotiation if there was no intent to reach an agreed solution? If there was a red line, which they are now saying there was, where is it published?

[Anneliese Dodds]

I could not have said it better myself. That is indeed the nub of the point.

I want to inform the House that, separate from the agreement, we will increase our support to Chagossians who are living in the UK and around the world through new and existing projects.

Another issue that has been of considerable interest to Members is the environment. We have secured a deal that will help to protect the unique environment of the Chagos archipelago—one of the world’s most important marine environments—to which both the UK and Mauritius have committed. The agreement will be supported by an enhanced partnership between the UK and Mauritius, under which the UK will support Mauritius’s ambitions to establish a marine protected area that protects the globally significant ecosystems in the Chagos archipelago. That is particularly important when it comes to protecting the islands’ biodiversity and ensuring they are protected against threats such as illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing activities.

--- Later in debate ---

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

The Conservative party pretends to recognise the serious threats that we face, but bringing forward yet another debate on the topic, just as our Prime Minister heads out to Washington to broker a just peace for Ukraine, is an act of blatant sabotage against our national interest. Yesterday, we saw a superficial and unconvincing performance of consensus from Opposition Front Benchers, who cannot bring themselves to recognise that this Government are delivering on national defence and security commitments in a way that they could not for the past 14 years, in particular regarding increasing defence spending to 2.5% of GDP to protect our country.

Let us face it: the Leader of the Opposition is so desperate for shares on X that she is incapable of engaging with sobering geopolitical realities, just when national consensus is needed. The truth is that none of us yet knows the exact details of the financial or security components of the proposed deal with Mauritius, which means that the purpose of the debate is clear. It is not intended to enable an honest and informed debate about how we can best secure our UK defence and security interests in the Indian ocean over the next century. Instead, it is designed to maximise the chance of a damaging dispute about this with our US allies, just when all our energy and diplomatic capital needs to be brought to bear to persuade the US of the need for continued commitments to European security and security guarantees for Ukraine. That is why certain voices have turned up today, when they have been absent in all our national security discussions or discussions on Ukraine. If the Opposition succeed, they will do enormous damage to our national security and that of our European allies.

Another aspect of the issue, which the Opposition are determined to disregard, is the fundamental importance of the rule of international law for our national interests and security. First and foremost, that is critical to our diplomacy in support of Ukraine. Russia’s invasion is a clear breach of the UN charter and it is on that basis that many countries around the world continue to vote with us, including earlier this week and in cases where countries are non-aligned. I fully understand that there are a range of views about legalities, but the direction of travel is clear and we cannot uphold the principle of a rules-based international order on the one hand while completely disregarding the multiple findings of international courts on the other.

Finally, as I have said many times in this place, my experience of discussions with US defence colleagues shows a clear and settled preference for legally binding and secure agreements, particularly around the basing arrangements. Those preferences are important for long-term relationships with the US and so is the clear support for the deal from India, whose partnership we must prize highly in this increasingly fragmented world. These live diplomatic questions should be dealt with sensitively and in a way that seeks cross-party consensus, most of all at this critical time when we need to present a united face to a bitterly divided world.

Ultimately, if a treaty with Mauritius is delivered, it will ensure the continued ability of UK and US defence and security assets to operate in the region for many decades to come. That objective is vital for our national security, in contrast to the Opposition’s motion, which does nothing but undermine it.

Syria

Calvin Bailey Excerpts

Thursday 19th December 2024 Commons Chamber

[Anneliese Dodds]

I am very grateful to the right hon. Member for his question. I am sure that he will understand —indeed, he has followed these issues for many years—that the UK’s sanctions regime is continuously kept under review. The UK has been determined to ensure that where we can use sanctions in order to ensure that there is accountability, we will do so. Of course, we will keep these matters under review and work with partners to make sure that there is accountability.

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

We welcome the Minister’s statement, and what she has detailed about the efforts of the Department and our Government to create a broad coalition to bring about peace in Syria. Earlier we had a statement on Ukraine from the Minister for the Armed Forces, who said that we were challenging malign Russian activity, and there was broad consensus across the House. Given the Russians’ malign activity in Syria, does the Minister agree that although we need an inclusive political process that includes the country’s minority groups, it is essential that we have a broad international process?

[Anneliese Dodds]

I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for raising the critical need for an international process, and the need for continuation of the engagement that we have seen in recent days—first, with Arab countries coming together, and then engagement by the EU, US, UK and others. I want to underline my hon. Friend’s point about Russia. It is clear that with Russia’s military support, the Assad regime was able to continue its brutal campaign against the Syrian people for over 13 years. The sudden fall of that regime has exposed Russia’s weakened state, and the unreliable and self-serving nature of its so-called alliances.

Oral Answers to Questions

Calvin Bailey Excerpts

Monday 9th September 2024 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call Calvin Bailey.

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

Apologies, Madam Deputy Speaker; I was not expecting to be called so soon.

I thank the Secretary of State for her focus on T-levels and her recognition of the need for a pause. I back up what my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton North East (Mrs Brackenridge) said about the botched nature of the T-level roll-out. Does the Secretary of State recognise that it is a challenge for many services, such as the NHS, to absorb T-level students effectively? Those qualifications need truly to give our young people the opportunities they deserve. Will she meet me and local further education experts to discuss this issue?