Syria
Debate between Calvin Bailey and David Lammy(1 week, 6 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Lammy
In so many ways, this horrid story, or at least the global attention on this horrid story, began with the use of chemical weapons. It would be fitting to see them taken away and absolutely destroyed so that they can never be used again. It has been important to seek the clarification that those who have led this rebellion are working with the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons and have set themselves against any use of chemical weapons and the preservation of those stockpiles.
Mr Calvin Bailey (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab)
I thank the Secretary of State for his statement and for the diligent and hard work of his Ministers, in particular the Minister for the middle east, my hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln (Mr Falconer), in keeping the House apprised of the ongoing issues, as he did last week and in the background over prior weeks.
Last week, I urged greater awareness of how the developments in Syria are interconnected, particularly with regard to Russia’s distraction and weakness. We all welcome the Foreign Secretary’s remarks on the escalation of the matter to a Cobra secretariat and the broad coalition we see on the Front Bench, in particular noting the security implications, the Home Office on migration flows, and his Department and the Ministry of Defence’s role in any stabilisation work. Will the Secretary of State provide his view on his Department’s ability to support such a significant piece of stabilisation activity alongside other work, following the disbandment of a Department for which that was the sole role?
As we know, the Russians have used their presence in Syria to expand their brutal security presence in other parts of the world, in particular Africa. What steps are we taking to assess how the developments will impact African states that have learned to rely on Russia for their security? Have we extended our hand of friendship to those states so they have the opportunity to avoid the manifestation of such situations? Finally—
British Indian Ocean Territory: Negotiations
Debate between Calvin Bailey and David Lammy(2 months, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Lammy
The right hon. Gentleman has championed the Chagossians in their plight for many years in this House. He makes his remarks with tremendous passion and strength, and he is right to do so. The way they were treated was wrong. I will have more to say on that when I bring forward the treaty in the months ahead. On whether they will now have a right to visit Diego Garcia, I must tell him that they will not under this treaty. Any resettlement or visits will be to the outer islands. This is an important US-UK security base, so I am unable to give him that assurance—they do not have that right under this treaty.
Mr Calvin Bailey (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab)
I do not believe I ever had the pleasure of flying into our joint base on Diego Garcia, either in the US Air Force or as a pilot in our own Royal Air Force, but its strategic value in terms of the capabilities that it offers and the relationship it cements with our US partners is clear, as was its contested existence. Does my right hon. Friend agree that it was a Tory Government that started the negotiations, because they recognised the dangerous situation facing the base, and that this Labour Government have now ensured that the base is undisputed and on a secure footing?
Mr Lammy
I thank my hon. Friend for his service. He is absolutely right to raise the issue of the islands being contested and this agreement putting them beyond contestation. That makes us all more secure as a result, as he knows because of his service. I think that most of the general public who have paid attention recognise that this is a deal that we in the United Kingdom can be proud of.