UK-German Relations

Calvin Bailey Excerpts

Wednesday 25th February 2026 Westminster Hall

[Sir Mark Hendrick (Preston) (Lab/Co-op)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered UK-German relations.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Twigg. I requested that this debate take place today because tomorrow the German Bundestag will have its first reading in ratifying the Kensington treaty. That treaty is an important step in rebuilding our relationship with Germany after the post-Brexit negativity from the previous Government. The relationship has a long and difficult history but in times of increased international pressure it is more important than ever. In that regard, it is a pleasure to welcome the German ambassador Susanne Baumann as well as Anne Finger Harries and her team to the debate.

My personal connections with Germany date back to a childhood pen friend from Essen, who I began writing to over 50 years ago—we are still in touch. Later, when I was in my 20s, I went to Germany to train as an electrical engineer with AG Telefunken, working in the Frankfurt area. Like many others, I took advantage of an opportunity to live and work in Germany that is not available to young people today because of the folly of Brexit. Today, there are around 6,780 people from Germany studying in the UK and 2,074 Brits studying in Germany. However, they are students, not workers with freedom of movement, so it is a different scenario nowadays.

Across the United Kingdom there are twinning agreements between German and British towns and cities, not least in my own constituency, which is paired with the town of Recklinghausen in Nordrhein-Westfalen in Germany. That partnership will celebrate its 70th anniversary this year. Naturally, relationships of this sort have their ups and downs; in recent history, Brexit stands out. That decision and the way it was conducted severely damaged people-to-people trust; it has weakened longstanding partnerships in private, public and economic affairs and made cross-border trade much more difficult, particularly trade conducted by small and medium-sized enterprises. It will, in my view, take a long time to mend the damage caused by Brexit. It is also a reminder that trust, once lost, is slow and difficult to rebuild.

Across British society, there is a wish for a closer relationship with the EU and with Germany. Recent polling shows that close to 60% of Britons believe that it was a mistake to leave the European Union, and shows that the majority of voters want to rejoin the EU. Despite increased travel restrictions, more than 70 million trips were made by Britons to Europe, close to 1 million of which were made to Germany.

In Parliament, the work of the all-party parliamentary group on Germany brings together politicians and stakeholders from both countries. To do that effectively, we work closely with our counterpart in the German Bundestag: the German-British friendship group. That allows us to bring politicians from both countries together to discuss shared priorities and projects and organise parallel debates such as this one. In that regard, I look forward to the UK parliamentary delegation’s visit to Germany, which is planned for May.

The momentum towards a closer Europe that is felt among Britons and in Parliament is also driven forward by this Labour Government. From our first day in office, we have worked on rebuilding our relationship with our European partners, be that through rejoining the Erasmus+ scheme, which gives young people across the UK and EU the opportunity to study and train on either side of the channel, or through the range of bilateral and multilateral agreements that this Government have signed and which lay out the road maps to further collaboration.

For example, the signing of the Trinity House agreement in October 2024 represents the most significant deepening of bilateral defence ties with Germany in decades. It signifies our commitment to European defence and especially to working in close accord with Germany. We are strengthening joint defence capabilities through a range of measures, such as committing to collaboration on big defence projects in, for example, aerospace. That was underlined by the first state visit by a German President in 27 years last December. President Steinmeier visited following the signing of the Kensington treaty, which defines six main areas of co-operation. They are all of paramount importance, but in this speech I want to focus on defence and economic co-operation. In the light of international instability, these seem to be the most pressing areas for this relationship.

Last week’s Munich security conference showed the strength of and commitment to a shared European defence. As the Prime Minister outlined in his keynote speech, in a crisis such as the current one, we have to stand together. We are doing that through agreements such as the Trinity House agreement and the Kensington treaty.

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

My hon. Friend is making a very powerful speech. One of the most important areas for UK-German security co-operation is in tackling the full range of threats that Russia exposes us to as Europeans. It is very clear from discussions with German colleagues and others that we need a better doctrine on that and one that includes sharing information, attributing the attacks that are happening weekly across Europe and deterring them through a co-ordinated response. Does my hon. Friend agree that we can work on that bilaterally and through the triad with France, and use the lessons we learn to improve our partnership working across Europe as a whole?

[Sir Mark Hendrick]

I totally concur with my hon. Friend, who has had a distinguished military career in the RAF.

As a result of the Russian invasion of Ukraine and the subsequent horrors, there is growing awareness in the UK that we need to be able to defend ourselves and that it is not enough to contract our security out to the United States. This means that there is no British security without Europe and no European security without Britain. Partnership with Europe, but specifically with Germany, is delivering on that growing awareness.

Through the coalition of the willing, Germany, Great Britain and France have a wish to drive forward the defence of Ukraine, and yesterday we commemorated the fourth year since the start of the war. Utilising the DIAMOND—delivering integrated air and missile operational networked defences—initiative, the UK and Germany, along with other NATO allies, are bolstering NATO’s eastern flank and building an alliance ready to defend itself. Our shared values and the ideas defining that relationship are not universal and the knowledge that they might need to be defended by force has driven that paradigm shift. In Germany, we have a partner on whom we can rely, come what may. That is why the Kensington treaty is so important. It sets in stone the indispensability of this relationship and how we can further develop co-operation between our two countries.

I come now to the subject of economic co-operation. The other important aspect of this relationship is our trading and economic partnership. Germany is the UK’s second largest trading partner, closely following the United States. Trade to Germany accounts for 8.1% of total British trade, and after the low of Brexit, bilateral trade is improving, with a 1.4% increase in trade last year. The German Chamber of Commerce and Industry has more than 1,600 German member companies operating in the UK. They include industry giants such as BMW, Bosch and Deutsche Bank. About 160 of my constituents work in the German company Krempel, which is located very close to my constituency. German companies bring £50 billion of foreign direct investment into the UK, while British companies invested over £40 billion in Germany last year alone. That important relationship can be seen in much of our day-to-day life. For instance, the 94 new state-of-the-art Piccadilly line trains are produced by Siemens Mobility in East Yorkshire. That is a great example of our partnership in action, combining German engineering with British craftsmanship.

The numbers convey a larger picture: the flow of products and ideas; the connection between small family-run businesses in both countries; the co-operation of industry that employs tens of thousands; and a synergy that is not only mutually beneficial but actively combines the greatest parts of our two countries.

In conclusion, the Kensington treaty is more than a diplomatic document; it is a recognition of what we already know: Britain and Germany are bound together by history, values and commerce, and a shared vision of a stable and prosperous Europe. From the twinning of our towns to the trains on our underground, from our students crossing the channel to our soldiers standing shoulder to shoulder, this relationship is alive in the daily fabric of both our nations. Brexit was a serious setback, and we should not pretend otherwise, but it did not sever the ties that matter most, and this Government are working hard to rebuild what was damaged.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ben Coleman (Chelsea and Fulham) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Twigg. I have been passionate about strengthening ties between the UK and Germany for most of my adult life, ever since I spent two years living in West Berlin in the mid-1980s—vor der Wende—before the wall came down. I lived in Kreuzberg, a neighbourhood that at that time was surrounded on three sides by the wall. It was an exhilarating, sometimes surreal, experience. It was a vibrant city, but also a cold war frontline, never far from the wall or the watchtowers beyond.

I remember having dinner at a neighbour’s flat on the evening of a 1 May street party that turned into a riot of car burning and looting sparked by a boycott of the national census. When we saw the sky suddenly light up, we thought at first that the riots had set a local supermarket ablaze. Then we realised it was East Berlin, and they were celebrating May day with fireworks, completely oblivious to what was happening just a couple of kilometres away. They were very different times.

Another memory I have from that time, which may seem a little bit odd—although perhaps not for an English politics geek, whose country lacks a written constitution—is discovering Germany’s proud basic law, the Grundgesetz, and learning about the role that Britain had played in bringing that into being. Germany is deep in my heart, as it is in the hearts of so many of my fellow citizens.

I have the pleasure of representing the constituency of Chelsea and Fulham, and Fulham is under the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham, which has long been twinned with the Berlin borough of Neukölln. I was very impressed, when we visited Neukölln, to see that it actually had the Hammersmith and Fulham crest in concrete at the front of their town hall, which shows a level of respect and seriousness towards local government that we can perhaps learn from.

Despite our strong relationship with Germany, we allowed something so precious to be damaged. After Brexit, the UK dropped from being Germany’s third most important trading partner to ninth, and German school exchanges to the UK fell by more than 80%. Our relationship did not break, but it was badly strained. We have to be honest about that, and be honest about the pain that we caused, not just to ourselves, but to the German side of our friendship.

That is why I am so moved by the enormous strides we are now making to restore and deepen our partnership with practical steps, as my colleagues have set out, that will benefit all our citizens. We are living in disturbing times. All of us recognise that—today perhaps more than any other day, after four years of the Ukraine war. The United States is retreating from Europe, Russia is a growing threat and the hard right is gaining ground, driving division across our continent, so I am glad that Britain and Germany have chosen to respond by moving closer together, not just in words but in deeds.

We have, as has been mentioned, the Trinity House agreements signed in October 2024, laying the foundation of establishing defence co-operation as a central pillar of our relationship. Under it, we have extraordinary things, such as British and German forces now operating together from Scotland to counter Russian submarines, flying jointly in maritime patrol aircraft, joint plans, including for purchase of advanced torpedoes, and growing real-time intelligence sharing. Very importantly, we are also ramping up cyber-security efforts to counter Russia’s hybrid warfare.

[Mr Calvin Bailey]

My hon. Friend is making a passionate and heartfelt speech about his relationship with Germany. In the cold world of national security, one important area for collaboration is cyber-security, and perhaps also AI, quantum and other areas. That is something that European democracies should have a shared approach towards, because these areas have typically been owned by our American allies. Does my hon. Friend agree that the UK and Germany need to work together to shape offensive cyber-operations and encourage fresh thinking about middle powers and how we seek to counter the Russian threat?

[Ben Coleman]

Not for the first time, my hon. Friend puts it much better than I could. Cyber-security is an absolutely key pillar of the Trinity House agreement, and AI, quantum and semiconductor investment should be things that Germany and Britain work on together, side by side, to defend our joint security and also contribute to the security of our common European home.

We had the Trinity House agreement, and then, last July, we had the good news of the Kensington treaty, signed by Chancellor Merz and the Prime Minister and, as we have heard, ratified in the Bundestag this week— a great moment. That landmark document is not just about defence but about foreign policy, the economy, innovation, energy, agriculture, education and science. It includes 17 concrete priority projects—not words, but deeds. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Mr Bailey) mentioned the E3, the trilateral grouping of France, Britain and Germany, which the treaty also sets out to reinvigorate.

Beyond defence, I am glad to note that we are committed to developing offshore energy connections. Anyone who enjoys travelling to Germany, as I do, will also be delighted by the news that we are trying to build a direct rail connection between London and Germany in the next 10 years, which is terrific.

Of course, we also have the wider context, which has been referred to. The UK Government determined, from their first day, to reset the Brexit-damaged relationship with the European Union, and are making real progress in doing so. Germany has been absolutely central to that progress.

But the warmth of our friendship goes deeper than any treaty, as President Steinmeier showed when he visited us last December, making, as has been noted, the first state visit to Britain by a German Head of State in nearly three decades. His visit to the ruins of Coventry cathedral was a gesture of reconciliation that I think moved many of us deeply. I had the privilege of telling him personally how much his supportive words meant to us.

I cannot finish without noting that the spirit of partnership is embodied here in London by Ambassador Susanne Baumann and her team, who, I am delighted to say, are here with us today. She has thrown herself into her role with tremendous energy and commitment, building new relationships across our public life so speedily and with, I think we would all agree, warmth, intelligence and genuine dedication. I think our country is proud that we can count her as a friend.

To conclude, look at what we have achieved together in just one year; imagine what more we could do together. The task ahead is clear: if I may say so, Vorsprung durch Freundschaft—to work as friends with ambition and pace to protect and strengthen our two great countries, our proud democracies and our common European home.

[Kevin Bonavia (Stevenage) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Twigg. I also congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Preston (Sir Mark Hendrick) on securing this important and timely debate. It is really good to have the Minister here covering another part of the world for a change, which I am sure he will appreciate.

Britain and Germany share one of Europe’s most significant bilateral relationships. It is grounded in common democratic values, strong economic ties and a shared commitment to European—and indeed global—security. That bilateral relationship continues to deepen, not only through NATO—I know, Mr Twigg, that you are very much at the forefront of the NATO Parliamentary Assembly on behalf of our country, and that you will be working with your German counterparts in that regard—but also through other means: trade, research collaboration, climate policy and people to people connections.

Millions travel, study or work between our two countries every year. My personal relationship with Germany began 30-something years ago with a school exchange, and I still see that exchange partner, now my friend, every year in London or Hamburg. Hamburg is a city that has a strong history of Anglo-German relationships, whether through trade, the Navy or, more latterly, the Beatles.

We are now in a much more uncertain time, as other hon. Members have already suggested. In dangerous times, we need to come together more than ever. Germany and Britain have been doing that, but we need to commit that to words, so we can carry out the deeds we have talked about today.

The Kensington treaty is the most comprehensive of its kind between our two countries since the second world war, and I am proud that the Prime Minister and Chancellor Merz came to my Stevenage constituency later in the day on which they signed the treaty to visit Airbus Defence and Space UK headquarters. They did so for a good reason. At the heart of the treaty—one of its many priorities—is defence co-operation, and they could see that in Stevenage, where they saw the SATCOM military satellite communications system that is being built for the German armed forces. That highlights how Germany is choosing this country to deliver world-leading geo-satellite capability, demonstrating trust in our specialist strengths in space technology.

[Mr Calvin Bailey]

One of the high points of UK-German industrial relations was the Eurofighter Typhoon, so it is with great sadness that a young aircraft spotter, who enjoyed seeing Panavia developing something special like Eurofighter, is now observing the future combat air system and the global combat air programme growing apart. Rather than reflecting on that as a failure, could it not be an opportunity for collaboration, using a shared platform and shared Wingman success?

[Kevin Bonavia]

I hear my hon. Friend, who makes a salient argument. We have seen how some of our European neighbours, Germany and France, perhaps collaborate in a different way, and we will see whether that works out. I hope that the Minister will speak to his friends in the Ministry of Defence and the wider Government to offer to co-operate on more projects, such as the successful Eurofighter Typhoon project.

That is a powerful example of our industrial collaboration. Airbus, as the largest shareholder in the Eurofighter consortium—46%—and with its manufacturing in Germany, is only one piece of a much wider UK-German industrial ecosystem that spans aerospace, defence, energy, engineering and pharmaceuticals. I could go on.

We must look to the future as well. There are substantial opportunities in both space and air defence where British and German co-operation can meet shared capability needs and strengthen both our countries’ resilience. We need that more than ever, as other hon. Members have alluded to, given the threats that we face from Russia, China and beyond. More broadly, the ratification of the Kensington treaty gives us a clear framework to go further—from supply chain resilience to joint research and development, from green technology to defence innovation and from cyber-security to energy co-operation. Although I have not talked about it today, it also brings people together, and that is the most important bilateral relationship that any two countries can have.

For constituents such as mine in Stevenage and others across this country, these partnerships bring investment, skilled jobs and long-term industrial certainty, while contributing meaningfully to European security and global stability. My hon. Friend the Member for Chelsea and Fulham (Ben Coleman) stole the words I was going to use, which I thought of when I was thinking about “Vorsprung durch Technik” and those adverts we saw as kids. Really, it is Vorsprung durch Freundschaft und Partnerschaft.

Arctic Security

Calvin Bailey Excerpts

Monday 19th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Yvette Cooper]

I was delighted to see the Danish Foreign Minister in London today. He is a friend, and Denmark is a close friend of the UK. Denmark has stood firm alongside the UK and the US, including by putting its armed forces’ lives at risk in Afghanistan and in other conflicts to support close allies. The Danes have shown immense dedication to the principles of collective security, they continue to show substantial support for Ukraine against Russia, and I want to strongly show Denmark the UK’s support.

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

This week’s tensions highlight the strategic importance of the Greenland-Iceland-UK gap and the urgent need for Europeans to fill the gaps in their ability to defend that space. Currently, that can be done only by the United States of America. Will the Foreign Secretary update us on the Government’s discussions with our European counterparts on strengthening our defence industries? What discussions have there been on full access to Security Action for Europe?

[Yvette Cooper]

My hon. Friend has immense expertise in this area and is right to highlight the Greenland-Iceland-UK gap as being crucial to maintaining the security of the Atlantic and as the basis for a lot of Arctic security issues. That is exactly why the UK and Norway are now jointly building new frigates as part of a major investment programme. It is one of the biggest defence contracts we have ever had. Norway is investing not just in jobs in the UK but, crucially, in an unrivalled partnership to strengthen our maritime security.

UK-France Relations

Calvin Bailey Excerpts

Wednesday 14th January 2026 Westminster Hall

[Chris Murray]

The hon. Gentleman is right that, strategically, our interests are aligned, even when there are key issues. I will come on to migration in just a second.

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

My hon. Friend is making a powerful speech that highlights his love for and expertise in this subject. One of the greatest threats to our shared security is from Russian sub-threshold activity, which could well escalate further later this year. Through the Franco-British Council—my hon. Friend and I both work with it—I have been working with the Royal United Services Institute and the Institut Montaigne on ways that the whole of both our Governments could work more effectively against that threat, including through joint National Security Council meetings—

[Peter Dowd (in the Chair)]

Order. I am sorry, but this is an intervention, not a short speech.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Bailey]

I will try and be sufficiently brief this time. The French have a very tight-knit strategic culture—something that we do not understand—that centres on European autonomy and being able to protect our interests as Europeans. Does my hon. Friend agree that that strategic culture is something we must relearn, post our Suez lessons, and that it should shape our outlook going forward?

[Peter Dowd (in the Chair)]

Order. I remind the hon. Gentleman that it is now 4.22 pm and the Minister has to speak, so I would be grateful if he could start to wind up.

Middle East and North Africa

Calvin Bailey Excerpts

Monday 5th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Mr Falconer]

It is vital that Syria is a place that is seen as safe and secure, not just by its majority but by the important minorities, which are a vital part of Syria’s fabric. My hon. Friend refers to the Kurds of north-east Syria, but there are a range of other minorities, not limited to the Alawites, the Druze and others. It is vital that the Syrian Government provide all minority communities in Syria with assurance of their place in the new Syria, and we discuss these questions regularly with the Syrian Government.

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

The combined operation of the Royal Air Force Typhoons and French aircraft in Syria reminds us of the continuing threat that Daesh poses to the people of Syria and our partners in the region, the importance of our European allies, and the importance of funding a strong and capable military. Does the Minister agree that we should honour our brave servicemen who took part in the operation? Will he outline what steps are being taken to ensure the continued security of Syria?

[Mr Falconer]

I thank my hon. and gallant Friend for his service in the RAF. I am proud to be the MP for RAF Waddington, but he probably trumps me in closeness to the RAF, given his long service. The RAF performed vital work in countering the threat of Daesh in Syria. We will continue to use our diplomatic and all other levers to ensure that Daesh does not re-emerge in Syria, and pose a threat not just to Syria but to the region and the UK.

Venezuela

Calvin Bailey Excerpts

Monday 5th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

Order. To give Members an update on my previous announcement, this statement will now run its course, because the Backbench Business debate has been postponed until a future date.

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

The Maduro Government had no democratic legitimacy, but a return to gunboat diplomacy and strongman-led spheres of influence is not in our national interest. The rules-based international order is not teetering but collapsing, and that is disastrous. However, we cannot just bemoan it; we must respond to that threat by building up the coherence of our own bloc: Europe. Does the Foreign Secretary agree that these developments demonstrate that the absolute priority must be not noises off, but deepening connections, hard and soft, with our own continent?

[Yvette Cooper]

We should strengthen our European partnerships, which is what we have been doing, and strengthen our investment in defence—again, that is what we are doing. The transatlantic partnership remains important. It is what we will discuss this week with the Americans, when discussing security guarantees for Ukraine. The security guarantees we have been discussing, which involve the US, are also about the security of Europe, Ukraine and the UK, and, ultimately, about the upholding of international law.

Rights of Women and Girls: Afghanistan

Calvin Bailey Excerpts

Monday 5th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Alice Macdonald]

I entirely agree: it is a war on women, and we must make clear that we will not tolerate it.

There have been some welcome moves, including the announcement by the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court in January last year that he had applied to the Court for arrest warrants for two senior Taliban leaders. I am also pleased that the UK is supporting the case to hold the Taliban accountable for violations of the convention on the elimination of all forms of discrimination against women at the International Court of Justice.

Will the Minister also tell the House how we will use our role at the UN and on the Security Council to demand accountability? As a witness said at the United Nations Security Council meeting in March last year, if impunity is the disease, accountability is the only antidote.

I also make a broader plea to Members and to the media: we must keep attention on what is happening in Afghanistan. As I have said, women have told me that they feel forgotten and that the world has turned its back. We must do whatever little we can to show that we have not.

Thirdly and finally, the Minister will know that 2025 marked 20 years since the landmark agreement of resolution 1325 on women, peace and security, yet two decades on we are failing to live up to its promise. Afghanistan is a focus country for the UK, as is stated in the current national action plan for women, peace and security. We therefore have a particular responsibility for the peace and rights of women and girls in Afghanistan. Will the Minister give an update on how we are delivering that crucial plan? It is also imperative that women be at the table for any talks. We must always call for that, and we must lead by example by ensuring that all our delegations include women at the table.

The situation for women and girls in Afghanistan is devastating, but we must not give up. Afghan women certainly are not giving up. They are determined and inspiring, and despite the challenges that they face, they are still finding ways to run businesses and work on the frontlines. We cannot abandon them. We must play our role as a party—now in government—that has always championed women’s rights at home and abroad.

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

I thank my hon. Friend for her important and powerful speech and for giving voice to the plight of Afghan women. Does she agree that recognition of gender apartheid is an essential part of our foreign policy? After four years of direct engagement with the Taliban, it is perhaps the only way we can start shifting the debate.

[Alice Macdonald]

I agree, and I welcome my hon. Friend’s support. Gender apartheid speaks to the systemic dismantling of a whole system of women’s rights, not individual cases of persecution. We should listen to the people who are calling for this, because it is a unifying call from many Afghan women.

If we turn our back on this crisis—on the gender apartheid unfolding in Afghanistan—we are failing not only Afghan women, but women everywhere. As Baroness Harman wrote recently,

“it is clear that we will not achieve global equality without tackling the systematic oppression of Afghan women and girls. The importance of this cannot be underestimated, not just for Afghan women, but for the hard-won rights and freedoms of women around the world.”

This is not just a moral issue. It is also a security issue, because we know that gender equality is essential for lasting and sustainable peace. We must hold true to our values, we must display them proudly as a sign of hope for the oppressed across the world, and we must do everything we can to uphold the rights of women and girls in Afghanistan.

Africa: New Approach

Calvin Bailey Excerpts

Tuesday 16th December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Falconer]

Let me pay tribute to the work of the right hon. Gentleman. I served for two years in South Sudan when he was the Development Secretary; I know his commitment to these issues and I know that many of the programmes that are still run in Africa were set up during his tenure. As I said, we will set out the ODA allocations in more detail in the new year. As the right hon. Gentleman alluded to, it is vital that we make this shift; there has been recognition on both sides of the House that there was a need for a change in approach. That is what the Africa strategy is about, and we will no doubt set out further detail in the new year.

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

I have visited four of my six markets in southern Africa this year, and we are clearly hearing support from those nations for this new approach. It transforms our relationship from donor to investor and from benefactor to partner. Key to delivering this ambition will be a focus on economic diplomacy. Therefore, it is critical that we sustain our resources and networks within the region. How will that be reflected in a new appreciation of the vital work that our diplomatic network does within Africa and the expertise that it has, because it is vital to enhancing both our interests and African interests?

[Mr Falconer]

I thank my hon. Friend both for his kind words about the diplomatic service and for his own diligent efforts as trade envoy to southern Africa, which I know is yielding real results. He is right that there is a real desire for serious engagement on economic issues. We see in his work and the work of many other trade envoys the potential for further growth in Africa, and the Foreign Office will remain focused on it.

Black History Month

Calvin Bailey Excerpts

Thursday 23rd October 2025 Commons Chamber

[Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)]

It is quite scary to follow the hon. Member for Brent East (Dawn Butler) and the right hon. Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott), who are both formidable advocates against injustice. I have done several debates with the hon. Member for Brent East, and I have so much respect for how she speaks to the Chamber. She was talking about that tiredness that people are feeling just now, from constantly having to fight for every single thing, and constantly having to argue against the injustices being served on her constituents and mine, as well as those of a significant number of Members across this House. It is absolutely tiring, but if she or the Mother of the House ever wants a cup of tea, a bit of allyship or, as we say in Aberdeen, a bosie—a cuddle—they should give us a shout. We are happy to oblige and to be united together.

The Mother of the House highlighted the cognitive dissonance that some politicians seem to have: they stand up and talk about Black History Month, while simultaneously refusing to discourage people who are protesting against migrants. That is really important. We need to remember that we cannot talk about the injustices that so many people face just once a year in this Chamber; we need to be fighting every single day. Every day that we have energy, we should be using it to ensure that there is an anti-racist narrative across society.

I represent Aberdeen North, one of the more diverse constituencies in Scotland. I will focus on the city of Aberdeen, because the census results are broken down by city rather than constituency, so it is much easier to do that. About 13.4% of people in Aberdeen come from a BME background, which is not that high, but over 20% of people in Aberdeen were not born in the United Kingdom, which is pretty high for Scotland. Some 2.5% of people in Aberdeen were born in Nigeria. There are 5,600 Nigerians—people who were born in Nigeria, not the descendants of immigrants—living in Aberdeen. We have a significant number of people who are working every day, who are contributing and who are making a difference.

I will mention some individuals, from both the past and present, who have made a difference in Aberdeen and Scotland. However, I note that there are so many people whose names we will never mention, who are working quietly as carers or in our NHS and doing jobs that are really difficult. I have been a carer, and it is a really hard, physical job that so many people do not want to do. To those who are making people’s lives better and doing miracles every single day, and whose names I do not mention, thank you for your contribution. It is massively appreciated.

I will first talk about some figures from the past. There is a wonderful part of the University of Aberdeen website that talks about the history of black Aberdonians and people who graduated from the university. Christopher James Davis, who was from Barbados, graduated in 1870—we think he is the first black graduate—in medicine, and then went to volunteer as a doctor in Sedan during the Franco-Prussian war. Sadly, he died from smallpox in the same year that he graduated.

Nathaniel Thomas King graduated from Aberdeen in 1876. He moved back to Nigeria and was one of the trailblazers in improving sanitation in Lagos. Again, he was another medicine graduate from Aberdeen.

Edward Tull-Warnock was a dentist in Aberdeen and Glasgow. His father was born in Barbados, although Edward was born in Folkestone. His brother was probably the first black commissioned officer in the British Army. As I say, Edward himself was a dentist, and he was not called up to the war because of that. We needed dentists during that time, particularly because so many people who volunteered or who were called up were rejected on the basis of the quality of their teeth and how likely they were to be ill as a result, so dentists were often an exempted occupation. Edward practised as a dentist for a significant number of years, latterly in Glasgow. Again, he was a real black trailblazer—potentially the first black registered dentist in Scotland.

In some of these cases I am saying words such as “potentially”, and I cannot talk about early women graduates of Aberdeen University because the registers just are not there. The rolls are there, but there is not enough information and the research has not been done. The university is looking to rectify that in the future, but, again, there are stories that will maybe never be told, because we just do not have the information.

I want to highlight some of the people in my constituency, and in Aberdeen more widely, who are making a difference, and whose stories might not otherwise be heard. Bertha Yakubu MBE came to Aberdeen in 1993 and really struggled with isolation. Bertha and the African Women’s Group in Aberdeen wrote a book called “African Women Speaking”, one of the most powerful books I have ever read. It is about their experiences of coming to Aberdeen and Scotland, how different it was from the countries they were born in, how different the experience was, and how difficult they found it to integrate, to find fellow feeling, and to find love and support in the community in Aberdeen. It really is a brilliant book, and I urge Members to get hold of it. Bertha now does a huge amount of work supporting women who are suffering from domestic violence by providing them with kinship, love and support, and by just being there for them. That is sometimes what people need to gain the courage to flee.

I want to talk about Ify Anyaegbu, who is in charge of FACEYOUTH, a charity that focuses on mental health. It focuses on young people, and on reducing the disadvantage that they feel in Aberdeen. I have met her on a number of occasions, and she is an absolute force of nature. She will do everything that she can to try to reduce disadvantage in Aberdeen.

Jane Akadiri is the founder of Touch of Love, an empowering and uplifting Christian community in the city. It does a huge amount of good, particularly with disadvantaged groups and people on the lowest incomes.

Florence Igboayaka, the founder of the Period Place, has written a book called “The Period Comic”, which is excellent. If young people aged between eight and 14 want to learn about what periods are like, the comic is a fabulous place to start, and I thoroughly recommend it. She has also created a line of period products for women with heavier period flows, which I understand a lot of African women have. Across the UK, a significant number of women from all heritages are not served well by the period products currently on the market. She also started, in Aberdeen, the “walk to give her a voice”, which is focused on ensuring that women feel safe, and can walk in their communities and talk about the things that matter to them. We should be able to talk about periods and the menopause, and to get the support that we need.

Those are some incredibly inspiring women, and my city would not be the place it is today without all the work that they do in our communities.

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

The hon. Lady may not know that I was a pilot in the Royal Air Force. I used to do a lot of work advocating for young black people entering STEM—science, technology, engineering and mathematics—industries, so I had the great privilege of visiting Aberdeen on a number of occasions. Unfortunately, I will not be able to visit next week, when the Association for Black and Minority Ethnic Engineers holds its annual conference in the hon. Lady’s constituency. The association was created by Dr Nike Folayan MBE and is supported ably by Falayo Osekita, who is a representative of Leonardo. Will the hon. Lady join me in recognising the excellent work that they do, creating a new history for her town?

[Kirsty Blackman]

I absolutely agree. I have met the Association for Black and Minority Ethnic Engineers. Unfortunately, I did not realise it was having its conference next week, but I thank the hon. Member for letting me know. It is a fabulous organisation. There continues to be a very tough glass ceiling in engineering. We are getting a huge number of more diverse candidates and graduates coming through in engineering, but at the highest levels of senior management—for example, in the energy industry—we are struggling to make that breakthrough, and to have enough black and minority ethnic individuals, so I support his comments. I support the Association for Black and Minority Ethnic Engineers, and I will do everything I can to assist it in breaking that glass ceiling. There is also a glass ceiling for female engineers. There is intersectionality here; it is particularly difficult for black female engineers to get to the highest senior management positions. I will keep doing everything I can to support that organisation and others.

To build on what the Mother of the House said, and what the hon. Member for Brent East said about the protests, the societal views being expressed right now are horrific. However, there has been an undercurrent for a very long time, and this is stuff that people have been thinking. Part of what drove some people to vote for Brexit was views such as, “There’s too much immigration—I don’t want all these people here.” I am sure all Labour Members have read “The Ragged Trousered Philanthropists”; they will know that it talks about the Conservatives of the time putting forward the racist narrative that “All your problems are caused by the immigrants. We just need to get rid of them.” This has been a narrative for 100 years, and we still need to counter it—perhaps more so today than ever, and certainly more than we have needed to at any other point in my adult life. We need to do everything we can to stop these racists being allowed to say anything they want.

--- Later in debate ---

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

Hon. Members may be wondering about my jacket today, and the truth, frankly, is that I am tired of being upstaged by the threads of my hon. Friend the Member for Brent East (Dawn Butler). However, this jacket is also a symbol of my identity. I got it when I went to Zambia in July in my role as trade envoy to southern Africa. The fabric is what we call chitenge, and it is the same kind of material that my mother, and indeed her mother, Joesphine Hambelele Nakun Tunga, wrapped me in at birth. That visit was important to me because I am proud of my heritage, but my home is here in London. That is my identity—I am British Zambian. That is my story.

Last Friday, I visited Centrepoint in my constituency and had a great conversation about opportunities for young people. One conversation with a young woman has stuck in my mind because of what she said, which was

“I am Black British. That is who I am, and I want you to know both of those things.”

Why is that such an important thing to say? For me, it is about what we are proud of. It is about freedom, democracy and the rule of law.

We must remember that those ideas were first written into the story of this nation on the fields of Runnymede in 1215. Magna Carta laid down the truth that still binds us: that no one, not even the most powerful, is above the law. Those are the foundations on which our democracy was built—the freedoms from which so many nations, such as the United States, derive their own, and the freedoms that underpin the very concept of a free world. They are the principles of democracy for which our country fought in the face of fascism and Nazi Germany in this nation’s finest hour—our greatest generation.

Yet standing quietly above those meadows, looking down on the birthplace of liberty, is another monument: the Commonwealth Air Forces Memorial, which bears the names of more than 20,000 men and women who have no known grave. Above the place where freedom was first signed into existence stands a memorial recording the names of those who gave their lives to defend it.

When I led the Royal Air Force’s ethnic minorities network, we used to visit the memorial every year. We would walk among those names—black, brown; Christian, Muslim, Sikh, Hindu—from across the Commonwealth, remembering the people who came not as visitors but as defenders of Britain, standing shoulder to shoulder against fascism and tyranny. Among them is Noor Inayat Khan, a British Indian woman raised in London who trained as a wireless operator in the Royal Air Force and worked for the Special Operations Executive. She was captured, tortured and executed in Dachau for refusing to betray her comrades. Her final word was the cry of “Liberté”, or freedom—the same freedom signed into being below her memorial on the fields of Runnymede. Her life and her death complete that circle—from the parchment that promised liberty to all peoples to the courage she displayed in preserving it.

Though his name is not carved on the walls of Runnymede, Flight Lieutenant Johnny Smythe stands in that same lineage of service, sacrifice and selflessness. A Sierra Leonean who flew with the Royal Air Force, he was shot down and held in a prisoner of war camp. Yet when he returned to Britain, he chose not to turn away, but to help to rebuild it. Working in the Colonial Office, it was Smythe who conceived the idea of recalling a troopship, the Empire Windrush—a troopship filled with our veterans who had fought for our freedom, who we know as the Pilots of the Caribbean—back to our shores, full of servicemen and nurses. That act gave birth to a new chapter of our shared history. So when hon. Members hear the words “You called…and we came”, let us remember that it was not the voice of a white official, but the voice of a Sierra Leonean man—a black British man and RAF officer who had already fought for his country’s freedom. That is how deeply black history runs within, not beside, British history.

This is how we counter division and exploitation. This is how we undo the false narrative and understanding of our history and our British identity that caused the Windrush scandal and that is enabling our enemies—the enemies of freedom, equality and British values—to mobilise today, because we are now seeing those things regularly online, on our streets and in parts of our media, frankly, that we would have never seen a few short years ago. We are seeing vicious hate speech and open racism. Racists are speaking out with not only impunity, but the sense that they speak for the spirit of the moment, and we must be clear that they do not.

That is what we are fighting against. But what are we fighting for? I think we can see a positive narrative emerging in our communities. I want to give an example from South Woodford, where the community came together after a sequence of events that caused real fear in our community and across Leyton and Wanstead. After the racism and extremist violence we saw during Tommy Robinson’s march last month, the appalling antisemitic attacks in Manchester, the firebombing of the mosque in Peacehaven and the calculated vandalism designed to intimidate—including the flags raised on the viaduct across from the South Woodford Islamic centre—we were brought together by Councillor Joe Hehir, Dr Fahim from the Islamic centre, Rabbi Richard Jacobi from East London and Essex Liberal synagogue and Reverend Dr Elizabeth Lowson from St Mary’s parish church Woodford. Dr Fahim united us with his words, but they were also the words of the broader community and the leadership of South Woodford society, including Pearl, Louise, Rena—and her excellent tea, I must say—Elaine Atkins MBE and Andy Pike. Their simple message was: “Love South Woodford. Hate racism.”

Here is what I think we can do next. We will raise our flags. We will celebrate our synagogues, our mosques, our churches and our community in South Woodford. We will gather together as a community and talk about our history under our flag. We will do that across the constituency, and celebrate with pride all the people in our community, regardless of where they come from. We will celebrate with other migrants like me and our beloved Okan Aslan, who next week will also identify as being British.

If we are serious about tackling hatred, and standing up to those who would tell us that this is not our land, then we must ensure that these stories are not confined to a single month, or to those who already know them, like me. The stories of Noor Inayat Khan and Johnny Smythe, and the people like me who have come after them, must be owned by and taught to and by us all. When every child in this country knows that our history is all of our history, we will not defeat the far right; we will remove the ignorance that fuels and creates it. Ultimately, we need to do that—otherwise, we cannot defeat it.

We are not yet in the same place that Noor Inayat Khan and Johnny Smythe were. We need to defeat the want, ignorance and fear from which hate is drawn. We need to prevent malign actors from exploiting anger and alienation, and the evils that create them. Black history—black British history—is our greatest weapon in doing so.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ben Coleman]

I am most grateful for the correction, Madam Deputy Speaker. It is interesting that my hon. Friend talks about doctors, because honestly there are not that many people in leadership positions in the NHS who are black, and that is another issue that needs to be addressed.

I have used the word “racism”—as we all have—in a way that is perhaps not easy to do everywhere. I have to say, when I first started becoming aware of the huge differences there are in how people are likely to experience health services depending on whether they are black or white, I did not feel at all comfortable using the word “racism”. Sometimes when people say “structural racism” when talking about racism, people will say, “I am not a racist!” but that is not what is being talked about, so it is very difficult to enter this conversation.

I remember when I was on the council I was once on a big Zoom call with 150 people to discuss the inequalities work we were doing. A black woman talked a lot about micro-aggressions, and I asked her, “When you are talking about micro-aggressions, aren’t you talking about racism?” She answered, “Yes, yes. But you can say that. I can’t.” So I think it is incumbent on people like me—a white middle-class gentleman of a certain age—to be allies, as many hon. Friends and hon. Members here are being, and to stand up and talk about these things and name them for what they are.

We can effect change. We can do the radical thing of implementing the change that is needed, but to do that we need to have leadership that wants to actually effect the change. We have found, sadly, that black women facing poor outcomes is shaped by systemic failings in leadership and accountability as well as in training and data collection. We need senior leaders to be held accountable for racial health inequalities. That means that they need to be aware of them, which means they need the data. We need Care Quality Commission inspections to specifically assess equity in care delivery. Trust boards should be specifically responsible for monitoring and addressing disparities, and performance metrics should include equity indicators. That all sounds terribly onerous, but it is not. It can become part of the normal way of doing things; it just has to be introduced at some point. As I said, these are not radical suggestions, but to do them would be radical.

Indeed, the really radical thing to do—this came out of the Committee—is just to listen properly to the women needing maternity services. I saw a terrible programme during covid where a woman was talking about her daughter, who was 20 and had gone to see her doctor. She was talking about being in immense pain. The doctor said, “Well, black women have differently shaped cervixes, so that is probably why.” She died in childbirth. That sort of thing happens all the time; we just do not talk about it all the time. It has to stop. We need to listen to black patients.

Black patients talking to us said, “I had pain. I reported pain and I reported symptoms—I just wasn’t believed.” Their concerns were dismissed. That pattern appears not just in maternal health services but right across healthcare.

[Mr Calvin Bailey]

My hon. Friend is making a powerful speech. It is important to highlight the simple things like listening to people, but we must also get over our inherent reluctance to speak about health inequities when we are speaking to each other. Prostate cancer, for example affects one in four black men, whereas it impacts one in eight white men, partly because we do not discuss the fact that it is more prevalent in black men and we need to conduct diagnosis much earlier. Does he agree that if you are a black man or you have a history of prostate cancer in your family, you should go and get a prostate prostate-specific antigen test as early as possible—as early as 45? I will not make reference to my own age or the fact that I have had a test myself.

[Ben Coleman]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend—my youthful friend—for that comment. I could not agree more. When I became aware of this problem back when I was a councillor, we instituted a programme to build trust within the black and minority ethnic community in the NHS. As a result, we had hundreds of conversations in the community with people from the NHS and with people of colour. One black gentleman, who I think was a little older than 45—he was probably not far from my own age—went and had a prostate test as a result, and it was found that he had prostate cancer. If he had not had the test, who knows what the situation would be these days. I therefore fully support my hon. Friend’s call for everybody to have prostate cancer tests. I have had one myself, and fortunately, like him, I think things are all right.

When we get feedback from patients, we need formal mechanisms for registering that—it should not be done in the typical ad hoc, amateur way—and we need to co-produce the changes with the people we are actually meant to be there for. Also, when people complain about discriminatory treatment, we need to consider that seriously, and the NHS needs to respond in a much more open-hearted, open-handed and open-minded way than I am told it often does. The Committee did the inquiry and came up with specific recommendations that affect black maternal health, but I think they spread right across the piece of black people not getting as good healthcare as they should, and as white people do.

I end on a specific example of something quite close to my heart because of friends: sickle cell disease. As we are talking about black history, I would like to pay tribute to Dame Elizabeth Anionwu, a wonderful woman and the UK’s first sickle cell nurse. She has done so much to educate me and other people and improve services in this country.

People may not know much about sickle cell if they are not black. It causes intense pain and organ damage. Crudely, cells get shaped like sickles, and it can cause strokes; it can even cause early death. It is often overlooked, mainly because it affects black and minority ethnic people.

Imperial College healthcare NHS trust is currently running a wonderful programme that serves my constituents in Chelsea and Fulham. It is one of only seven centres in the country piloting what is called a renal haematology triage unit, which is one of those sexy NHS titles, but it just means if a person suddenly get a crisis and needs to be seen swiftly, they do not have to wait for hours and hours in accident and emergency; they can get swift pain relief. That is vital for making sure that the problem does not get seriously dangerous seriously quickly. I went to visit it and talked to patients and staff. It is a terrific centre that has made a huge difference to people’s lives, as they are able to go to work and look after their children more easily. It is inspirational—but, sadly, it is a pilot. In the normal world, we do a pilot, we see if it works and, if it does, we try to find the funding long term. Often, in the NHS it means, “We have got a bit of money left over. What can we do?” or it means, “Let’s do a project for a few years and call it a pilot.” We need to keep the funding for those seven projects across the country, which are offering urgent, swift pain relief for people with sickle cell, after April. That is one thing that I am working on at the moment. We have to show everybody that they matter equally. We have to build trust.

So let us build trust, let us acknowledge the harm that has been done and let us do the work on training, comprehensive data and workforce issues. Let us name racism and tackle it head on. Let us listen to black patients and ensure that services for conditions such as sickle cell are as important to everybody as they are to just a few. We cannot change history—we can recognise it, as my hon. Friend the Member for Clapham and Brixton Hill (Bell Ribeiro-Addy), who has just left the Chamber, said—but we can change the future. We have the evidence and the recommendations. We know what needs to be done. I have not said anything new or anything that will have shocked the House. The only thing that is shocking is that there is often so little willpower to make the obvious and necessary changes that are needed. I will keep fighting for that to happen, and I hope that everyone in the Chamber will fight alongside me.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mims Davies (East Grinstead and Uckfield) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to respond to the debate on behalf of my party. I thank hon. Members for their powerful, important and wide-ranging contributions. It is clear that we share a commitment across the House to recognise the achievements of black Britons and to address the challenges that remain.

The Commission on Race and Ethnic Disparities concluded that Britain is a model as a multi-ethnic society with shared national values, and

“a beacon to the rest of Europe and the world”.

That is not to ignore some of the issues that have been raised in the Chamber, but to acknowledge rightly our progress and potential. If any country can continue to advance equality of opportunity for black people, it is this one.

As has been mentioned, the Leader of the Opposition is the first black woman to lead a major political party in the UK. As we have agreed today, black British history is a powerful weapon to challenge racism, tackle underachievement, tackle inequalities in health, education and justice, and ensure the economic opportunities that we want and desire for all our constituents. That was drawn out by Members across the Chamber.

Turning to the contributions, it is a pleasure to be in this the Mother of the House, the right hon. Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott), because I remember watching her on the telly on “This Week”. That was my favourite show, and I very much enjoyed watching her. It was pertinent and valuable that she drew out the importance of migrants who support our public services, and the disparities and disadvantages in educational outcomes that remain for too many black children.

The hon. Member for Chelmsford (Marie Goldman) rightly raised the maternal health disparities. To respond to the concerns she raised that relate to my party’s tenure, we did launch a maternity disparities taskforce in February 2022 to explore inequalities in maternity care in order, vitally, to improve outcomes for women. It focused on disparities faced by women from ethnic minorities and those living in deprived areas, who saw a lack of parity with others. We launched a £50 million fund to tackle health inequalities in maternity care, as part of our women’s health priorities of 2024, to build a consortium to deliver research, which has been raised today, and capacity over the next five years. I hope the Minister will undertake to hold to account other Departments to ensure that that is built on. I am sure that she will take that opportunity after the debate, especially as it has been mentioned by Members across the Chamber.

The hon. Member for Brent East (Dawn Butler), who mentioned the fact that we co-chair the all-party parliamentary group on women in Parliament, spoke bravely and movingly again about the direct racism that she receives. That is abhorrent, unacceptable, unwarranted and unbelievable in this day and age. I love the “I love myself” affirmation—I think I might start telling myself that in the mirror every morning. Maybe we should all do so if we need to get away from the kind of rot we get on social media. I absolutely agree with the points she made about one particular party that is trying to take people back to some kind of past and is offering a mirage. It needs to pick a side—capitalist, socialist or populist—but it is not a direction that I want to go in.

The hon. Member also mentioned that there is no joy or energy in racism; it is pure negativity. She might know that I love my music, so I am happy that DJ Love Spoon might be able to make an appearance at her event. The quote that she read about making some noise was exactly right.

The hon. Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Mr Bailey) is not in his place at the moment—

[Mr Calvin Bailey]

Ahem!

[Mims Davies]

Oh sorry, he has moved—how could I miss him in that jacket? Talking about making some noise, the hon. Member’s jacket has made a splash in the Chamber today. He rightly spoke about pride in being black and British, and that was brilliant to hear.

The hon. Member and others spoke about prostate cancer rates for black men. The Prostate Cancer Support Organisation recently held an event in my patch with the East Grinstead and District Lions club. Just last Saturday, more than 1,000 men came to the Meridian Hall for the seventh annual event to get checked. Sometimes it is in those less formal places that people can have conversations that tackle stigma and concerns around health. As we have heard from other Members, sometimes it is people like Brian and his team starting those conversations that gives people the confidence to go to the NHS and other more formal structures. That gives me the opportunity to gently but I think rightly challenge the men’s and women’s health strategies. This is not just about waiting lists; it is about real interventions and change for people.

The hon. Member for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman) mentioned the Scottish word for “cuddle”. The Welsh word, “cwtsh”, was quite a new one for me. She spoke about everyday miracles. I think there is a danger, in all this negativity, that we miss those everyday miracles in our constituencies. That is not to mention the miraculousness of dentistry over the decades—over history—and how vital those people have been to us.

The hon. Member for Chelsea and Fulham (Ben Coleman) rightly spent much of his time reflecting on the value of our Select Committees and of addressing the outcomes for black people in the NHS. I urge him to work with his party on the issues of birth and women’s health. The Government rightly say that they are committed to the women’s health strategy. Again, I implore Ministers to remain committed to working together on that, because we know what a difference it can make.

The hon. Gentleman spoke about being radical—he said that being radical is about implementation. They say that the first iteration of policy is operations, so let us get this going so that it can really make change. There are so many changes in NHS England. Rightly, we are all taking a forensic look at that, but there is a lack of interest in outcomes for Wales, and a lot of money is going in directions that we might not always be comfortable with, so let us use this opportunity to challenge inequalities.

The Minister for Equalities mentioned the ethnicity pay gap reporting. It is vital that we fully understand the scrutiny and consider potential legislation.

I know that for the hon. Member for Brent East— I hope that I can call her my hon. Friend—this is so personal. October is Breast Cancer Awareness Month, and many of us will have been wearing pink on various days and highlighting events across Parliament. Women from all backgrounds need real advice. We talked about stigma around prostate cancer and black men’s health, but we also need to ensure that for women there are conversations about breast health and breast cancer. Sadly, we are still seeing poorer breast cancer outcomes for women in ethnic minority communities. Breastcancernow.org has a brilliant symptoms checker for every woman to use. When I was working with Wellbeing of Women on issues related to the menopause for black women, it struck me that the outcomes and workplace experiences are still too wide-ranging. This is a great opportunity to raise those issues.

The hon. Member for Bournemouth East (Tom Hayes) mentioned “No Blacks, No Irish” signs. My dad was the main contractor for Brighton and Hove council in the ’70s and ’80s, and he employed many Irish people. In fact, I thought that most people spoke with an Irish accent. It was quite a surprise to me growing up that there was a Sussex accent, which is remarkably different. I remember those days of “Auf Wiedersehen, Pet” and so on. The hon. Gentleman was absolutely right. That was a real experience for families and it shaped people. I thank him for sharing that.

The hon. Member for Watford (Matt Turmaine) highlighted local organisations, trust, and the approach of churches—that is important. The Hope church in East Grinstead does great work in my patch, particularly on job search and helping men in particular not to feel alone.

To conclude, let us work with energy in Black History Month to boost real opportunity across society and produce real outcomes, real change and real understanding. I say that MP stands not for Member of Parliament but for “most persistent”, because our job is to stand up for the voiceless. We must confront racism and make a direct difference. By being true to the theme of this Black History Month, which is “Standing Firm in Power and Pride”, and through our strength, resilience and leadership in this House and across our communities, we will see real change. That change lies in all our hands and will happen by us working together.

Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill

Calvin Bailey Excerpts

Committee of the whole House
Monday 20th October 2025 Commons Chamber

[Wendy Morton]

We have made it very clear, repeatedly, at the Dispatch Box. Lord Cameron, the then Foreign Secretary, stopped the negotiations.

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

rose—

[Wendy Morton]

I am going to make some more progress.

--- Later in debate ---

[Wendy Morton]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. That is exactly why we have continued and will continue to probe the Government on the MPA. We have not had answers to our questions; we have not had the transparency that I think this House deserves.

It is very possible—in fact, it is very likely—that Labour has committed Britain to helping Mauritius dismantle an MPA that we ourselves established. There are no assurances that we will not be committing British resources to actively harm our own interests and undo our work. Mauritius does not have the capability to manage, monitor or enforce an MPA. It does not have the infrastructure at sea or any such experience. It would leave the stocks in those waters exposed to real risk of pillaging, including by Chinese vessels. It is not likely to have the will to do so either, as we know the economic potential of the waters is of interest to Mauritius.

Despite the Government’s ludicrous and insulting claim that those who oppose this deal side with Russia and its friends, Mauritius has been developing closer ties with Russia on marine matters, announcing as recently as May 2025 that the two countries are strengthening their ties on marine innovation, including marine research, while Mauritius’s close relationship with China—a strategic partnership, no less—opens up the possibility of Chinese fishing trawlers in these waters. It is therefore absolutely right that this House gets a say over the fate of the MPA, and the CRaG-equivalent process set out in our new clause would provide for an appropriate level of scrutiny.

New clause 4 would require regular reporting on the ecological status of the Chagos MPA, which is necessary for the same reason as new clause 3. The Government have bound us to support Mauritius to manage the MPA, so there must be scrutiny of what the Government are doing and the ecological consequences. There are widespread concerns across the House on the future of the MPA, and Ministers have so far failed to give any answers or any assurances; when asked, they have said that they do not know about the future and cannot tell us what resources and costs will be incurred to meet these obligations. Given our role in managing the MPA, the UK should be able to access the data required for this report. This new clause reaffirms our commitment to the MPA.

We recognise the sensitive nature of the military arrangements on Diego Garcia, but oversight of the agreement is none the less essential. New clause 5 would allow for appropriate parliamentary scrutiny while respecting the need to protect critical information. The new clause covers the key areas of security consideration and will act as a catalyst for the Government to maintain their own monitoring of each area. We believe that that is critical as there are holes in the provisions. There must, for example, be agreement on upgrading infrastructure in the buffer zone, such as sensors—but what if there is no agreement? Likewise, the treaty stipulates that Mauritius and Britain must jointly decide on the management and use of the electromagnetic spectrum.

Of particular importance in new clause 5 are paragraphs (d) and (e). On (d), we must ensure that only vessels that should be in the area are in the area, and that Russian and potentially even Chinese vessels are deterred from entering—I have already mentioned the closer ties and partnerships between Mauritius and those countries, which should concern all of us.

With reference to paragraph (e), the treaty states that the United Kingdom agrees

“to expeditiously inform Mauritius of any armed attack on a third state directly emanating from the base on Diego Garcia”.

Given the huge range of security threats in the Indo-Pacific and the middle east, it is far from impossible that in future this mechanism may need to be used. It is important that the notifications are presented to the Intelligence and Security Committee, as once again it would force the Government to log and monitor the mechanism, including any operational impacts it might have. We know that there are genuine concerns that third countries—potentially even China—might try to establish themselves in the archipelago, and the arrangements in the treaty must be monitored to ensure that they are sufficiently robust to stop that happening.

New clause 6 probes the Government’s argument that a legally binding ruling under UNCLOS would have an impact on our ability to operate the electromagnetic spectrum, and impede air and sea access as well as the ability to patrol the area around the base. We take issue with that assertion, not least because there is an argument that provisions under article 298 of UNCLOS allow for exemptions relevant to disputes concerning military activities. The Government have not addressed this issue when we have probed, including on Second Reading, so we have had no choice but to table this new clause to test the Government’s assertion.

I turn finally to new clause 7. The British Chagossian community have been treated appallingly by this Labour Government. Twice the deal has ended up in the courts because of the way Labour has ridden roughshod over their concerns. This Bill sells them short, too. The resettlement programme for the Chagos islands under this treaty is entirely in the hands of Mauritius—a country to which, I should add, Chagossians feel little affinity. Indeed, we have seen many Chagossians arriving in the UK from Mauritius in recent weeks. I hope the Minister will respond to that from the Dispatch Box, because it is clearly concerning that they have been moved to take this action.

The Bill also stops British overseas territories citizenship being awarded on the basis of descent from a person born on the Chagos archipelago. Sadly, we cannot amend the treaty through the Bill; it just is not within the parliamentary rules. However, new clause 7 would require the Government to consult the Chagossian community on the implementation of the treaty—including on the establishment of the trust fund, which we capitalise and Mauritius distributes—and on areas of dispute arising between the UK and Mauritian Governments prior to their being discussed at the joint committee created by the treaty. It also requires the Foreign Secretary to present a report to Parliament within six months of the Act becoming law, and in every subsequent year, on how Chagossian rights are being upheld under this agreement. We have a national obligation and responsibility to the Chagossian community, and the Conservatives will always stand up for their rights.

To conclude, taken together, our amendments and new clauses will hold the Government to account. Let us be clear: the Conservatives oppose this surrender Bill, its colossal costs and the adverse impact on our defence and security. Accepting these amendments and new clauses will simply strengthen accountability and transparency.

[Mr Calvin Bailey]

I have set out the security and geopolitical importance of the treaty many times in this place, and would therefore have appreciated the opportunity today to engage with detailed scrutiny of the treaty and the defence arrangements it enables. Sadly, that is not the line that the Opposition are going down. Instead, we are faced with a series of wrecking amendments that do not attempt to improve the Bill in any way. They are designed to force the Government to let our allies down, undermining our international credibility and reputation, and creating greater geopolitical risk and legal and security risks to our base on Diego Garcia.

If Opposition amendments were passed today, it would be impossible for us to meet our commitments in a timely way by implementing the agreement with Mauritius that Ministers have completed—an agreement that the Conservative Government started and carried through 11 rounds of negotiations but now want to throw back, no matter the damage that it would do to our nations. At no point have they made clear the legal basis for starting the 11 rounds of negotiations in the first instance.

I fully understand and sympathise with the motivation behind amendment 9. The creation of the Chagos islands as a separate territory created a deep injustice, because it was bound up in the dispossession of the Chagossians, but that historical injustice cannot simply be undone. We cannot turn back the clock, however much we might want to do so. The question of a right to return is not remotely simple, because access to Diego Garcia is inevitably a serious question of security. People obviously cannot return to exactly where their families lived, because of the highly sensitive military facility that now stands in their place. Perhaps a limited right of return could be negotiated, but that would engage security procedures that are secret and involve the UK and the US as well as Mauritius, as was acknowledged by the right hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton). The amendment imagines that if the negotiations were rejected by even the narrowest of margins, the entire treaty would fall apart and would need to be renegotiated afresh, significantly increasing geopolitical risk to the base and our interests. Perhaps the Minister could invite some assistance on this point from those who conducted the first 11 rounds of negotiations.

Let us get real: there are reasons why international treaties are negotiated by the Government and subject to democratic scrutiny in this House and through these procedures. What the Liberal Democrats are proposing amounts to making a UK foreign and defence policy dependent on a referendum, and that includes vital defence interests that are shared with the US and other allies. That referendum would apparently comprise non-UK citizens just as much as it would British Chagossians. Frankly, I would have thought that the Liberal Democrats more than others would have learned from the disastrous experience of Brexit that making foreign policy by referendum is not the wisest course of action.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Bailey]

There is already a barrage of misinformation coming from the Opposition, and I am not going to invite any more of it to flow across the Floor. There are a multiplicity of bad actors internationally who would benefit from the collapse of this Bill—and just imagine how many more there would be if we took the course the Opposition urge us to take.

[Chris Coghlan (Dorking and Horley) (LD)]

The hon. Member just said that foreign policy should not be made by referendum. Does he disagree, then, with article 1(2) of the UN charter—that the right to self-determination is a core principle in international relations and that we should therefore have a referendum for Chagos?

[Mr Bailey]

I thank the hon. Member for his intervention. The Bill has been before the House already, and at the moment we are discussing the amendments that have been tabled. The hon. Member will soon have the opportunity to discuss the amendments he has tabled. However, abdicating this Chamber’s decision—[Interruption.]

[The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Caroline Nokes)]

Order. There is far too much noise and many private conversations, which make it very difficult to hear the hon. Gentleman.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Bailey]

Abdicating this House’s responsibilities to a referendum is not something on which we will agree. This treaty is a vital step to secure UK interests. It puts the Diego Garcia base on a secure footing for at least 100 years. I understand that Opposition colleagues have a range of objections to this treaty, not all of which are jaw-droppingly hypocritical, however—

[The Second Deputy Chairman]

Order. I will give the hon. Gentleman the same warning that I gave the right hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness (Graham Stuart). He needs to be very careful with his language.

[Mr Bailey]

Not all the objections are jaw-droppingly confused, but some colleagues will vote against the Bill tonight on the basis of them. That is no reason to support an amendment that would undermine the Government’s ability to navigate the difficult and chaotic world we live in today and keep our country safe.

Middle East

Calvin Bailey Excerpts

Monday 21st July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lammy]

Yes, absolutely. I am grateful for all the work that my hon. Friend has done, and his background in medicine helps to bring these issues to public attention.

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

According to the UN, nearly 800 Palestinians have been killed near the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation aid points. The UK sending £129 million in aid is nearly pointless given the denial of the UN’s aid system, and Israel’s cruel blockade is choking off supplies to the people who need it and looks very much like starvation as a weapon of war. The RAF broke a previous blockade with airdrops months ago, and although we welcome the additional £40 million of medical aid that has been promised today, and today’s international statement, Israel has rejected such appeals. So I ask again, please, what are the additional steps that the Foreign Secretary told the Foreign Affairs Committee we would take to break this cruel blockade and get aid to those desperately in need?

[Mr Lammy]

My hon. Friend will have heard the statement that I made today on the extra steps that we are taking in terms of humanitarian aid. He will have seen the statement, made by 31 international partners, on the fact that this war must come to an end and that aid must get in. He is right to condemn the aid system. We warned Israel about reducing the aid points to four, and now we are seeing the horrors in front of our eyes. I remind Israel again about its obligations to international humanitarian law and my worry that they are being breached.