Foreign Interference

Debate between Caroline Nokes and Calvin Bailey

Thursday 11th December 2025 Commons Chamber

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

I thank the hon. Member for Lewes (James MacCleary) for securing the debate. I have expanded my remarks beyond foreign interference, because the way Russia views what it is doing at the moment is more than that. It is a direct attack on a system and on our way of life. This is more than interference—it is conflict.

Across the world, the contest is under way between liberal democracies that trust their people and autocratic regimes that fear them. Nowhere exemplifies that more than Russia, a state built on the control and takeover of civil society. Russia views its democratic neighbours to the west as weak and vulnerable, to be divided and picked off one by one, but Russia is wrong and we must show it that it is wrong. It cloaks its aggression towards its former colonies in a sense of entitlement and ownership—a warped hangover from its imperial past.

Ukraine is on the frontline of this contest. That is why I am glad that this Government and this Parliament are committed to standing with Ukraine for as long as it takes, and that our Government have increased military support for Ukraine to its highest level ever. This year we are providing £4.5 billion in financial aid and military support to Ukraine. However, while all wars must end in negotiation, we have to be clear that there should be no deal about Ukraine without Ukraine, and we must recognise that we will all have capitulated if Ukraine is forced to agree to unfavourable terms. If that happens, we will have capitulated to the idea that unprovoked aggression should be rewarded and that the victims of an illegal occupation should be collectively punished for standing in the way.

After so many years, it is easy to forget what Russian aggression and occupation mean: children forcibly taken from their families and transported for reeducation in Russia, prisoners of war raped and executed, and civilians publicly hanged in occupied towns simply for speaking out. We cannot live in a world where the strong do what they will and the weak suffer what they must. That is Russia’s world, and its success, in Ukraine and across Europe, would represent the death of our values and our way of life.

I was pleased that we in the Defence Committee put out a joint statement reaffirming our commitment to Ukraine, and calling on the UK and our European allies to do more. We must do more, not only in supporting Ukraine but in countering the attempts by Russia and its autocratic bedfellows to destroy our democracy, pull apart our alliances and undermine our society. For that reason, I am grateful to the hon. Member for Lewes for securing the debate and for the opportunity to speak in it.

Russia believes that it is already at war with NATO, and so with us. While it competes on the battlefield in Ukraine with drones and missiles, it is also seeking to influence and interfere in our societies and communities. That reality is something that most people in this country do not yet understand. The recently published Defence Committee report on UK contributions to European security highlighted this as an area where further effort and cross-Government co-ordination are needed.

While our public are largely unaware, Russia seeks to slowly slice away at our defences and at the trust we have in one another, slice by slice, until we find that the freedoms, security and unity we have taken for granted have been carved away. Russia does this by subtly building relationships with local actors and influencers. This tactic is not new; it has a long history. In the ’60s, the KGB orchestrated a campaign to alienate West Germany from its allies by portraying it as a hub for Nazi antisemitism. The operation involved antisemitic graffiti and synagogue vandalism, emboldening far-right elements and sparking international outrage.

Today, Russia intervenes selectively and strategically to support far-right and far-left parties across Europe, while its intelligence farms out sabotage plots to criminals and opportunists. From Russian oligarchs socialising with Boris Johnson and the Brexit brigade to Kremlin-backed spending on pro-Brexit disinformation campaigns, Russia has long sought to influence and undermine our democratic system from the top.

Today, in this Parliament, there sits a party whose leaders have taken Russian bribes. Nathan Gill, the former leader of Reform UK in Wales, took at least £40,000 in cash from a pro-Kremlin operative; David Coburn, the former UKIP leader in Scotland and former Brexit party MEP, discussed a potential $6,500 payment from the same pro-Kremlin network. The hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage) once vouched that his right-hand man was “decent” and “honest”. Now he insists that there are no pro-Kremlin links in Reform UK—so why do his parties keep being led by Putin’s puppets? I suggest that the hon. Member takes a look in the mirror and, for once, puts the country before himself and investigates Reform’s pro-Russia links.

Russia’s reach also extends to our streets, where it seeks, in the words of MI5 director general McCallum, “sustained mayhem”. In my own constituency, we have seen two Russia-linked attacks: an arson attack on a Leyton warehouse storing aid for Ukraine, and an Islamophobic graffiti campaign across east London, which targeted a mosque and religious schools locally. These attacks are Russian attempts to influence our politics, including our support for Ukraine. Most importantly, they are attempts to cause division among and within our communities.

As the Defence Committee’s report on hybrid threats highlights, our democratic openness makes us more vulnerable to Russia’s influence campaigns, but that does not make autocracies such as Russia stronger or more resilient than us. In the spirit of democratic honesty, we must make the case to the public that investing in our security is essential. Our security services must play an active role in countering attacks on democracy and elections. We must all make the case for increased defence spending, which is essential to ensure the safety and security of our democracy.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I will make the same entreaty that I made in the last debate. If hon. Members are going to criticise other hon. Members of this House, they should have informed them in advance; I trust that the hon. Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Mr Bailey) did so in relation to the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage). I call John Cooper.

Points of Order

Debate between Caroline Nokes and Calvin Bailey

Tuesday 11th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I understand that the hon. Member for Leyton and Wanstead wishes to raise a similar point of order.

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

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Last week, the Deputy Prime Minister made an historic appearance as the first black man in history to answer Prime Minister’s questions. It would have been seen by thousands of young black men, who would have believed that this is a place for them. Footage from that appearance has sadly been doctored for circulation on social media, in violation of Parliament’s rules on the use of footage—namely, rules 1.2, 1.4 and 2.1—including a video shared from the account of the right hon. Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick). Will you advise me on how I and other hon. Members might ensure than such flagrant breaches do not occur again?

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I thank both Members for their points of order. May I seek clarification that the right hon. Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick) was informed of them in advance?

[Graeme Downie]

indicated assent.

[Mr Calvin Bailey]

indicated assent.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

The terms and conditions for downloading and making use of clips from parliamentlive.tv are published online. Although it would not be appropriate for me to refer to guidance given to individual Members, I urge all colleagues to follow the rules. Ultimately, I am not responsible for what Members post online. How we treat each other is important and sets the tone for national debate. I ask Members to consider carefully what is in good or bad taste, and to exercise good judgment in what they post online about colleagues.

On the broader point about the use of AI in relation to footage of our proceedings, that is an issue that the Administration Committee may wish to pursue. In particular, the House might benefit from considering whether the current licensing rules and enforcement mechanisms are appropriate.

Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill

Debate between Caroline Nokes and Calvin Bailey

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

[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.

Syria

Debate between Caroline Nokes and Calvin Bailey

Monday 9th December 2024 Commons Chamber

[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—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

Order. Members have to keep their questions short.

Grenfell Tower Inquiry

Debate between Caroline Nokes and Calvin Bailey

Monday 2nd December 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mr Bailey]

The fundamental difference between an air accident investigation and a public inquiry is that as culpability is identified it is then passed on for action. This lies at the heart of the problem, which is the slow pace of bringing about justice. An extended period for a public inquiry has prevented and inhibited the delivery of justice for the people of Grenfell. Does the hon. Gentleman—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

Order. I remind Members that interventions need to be pithy and short.

Black History Month

Debate between Caroline Nokes and Calvin Bailey

Thursday 24th October 2024 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I remind the hon. Lady that interventions need to be short. She will have an opportunity to make a speech in due course.

[Mr Bailey]

I thank my hon. Friend for her powerful intervention about the important and necessary allyship of those organisations. It is of fundamental importance that we empower them and help them to lift others up, as my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme made clear earlier.

The stories of ethnic minority communities are not footnotes; they are integral chapters in our national history. From Claudia Jones, pioneer of the West Indian Gazette and the Notting Hill carnival, to Paul Stephenson and Roy Hackett, who led the Bristol bus boycott in 1963, to Laurie Cunningham, the first black capped England football player from our very own Leyton Orient, British history is enriched by the lives and contributions of people of colour. To overlook these contributions is to erase a vital part of our collective history. As the author Zadie Smith has said, when you erase people’s history, you erase their humanity. Recognising black British history is essential for building a truly inclusive society. It is in this spirit of inclusivity that I will carry on.

Black History Month is an opportunity to recognise the diversity and interconnectedness of the people and cultures that shaped modern Britain. One of the most important aspects of that is remembering the long and proud tradition of black and Asian servicemen and women who have defended this nation with valour and distinction. As we know, soldiers from Africa, the Caribbean and the Indian subcontinent made significant contributions to Britain’s efforts in both world wars. I want to remember in particular the contributions of our aviators, such as squadron leader Mohinder Singh Pujji, an Indian RAF pilot who flew Hurricanes and Spitfires during the Battle of Britain. I would also like to share the stories of the Jamaican squadrons—the pilots of the Caribbean, as we like to remember them. There were so many brave men and women like Mohinder and the pilots of the Caribbean who played a vital role in securing our freedom. Their contributions were crucial, but are often overlooked. We will remember them next month on Remembrance Sunday.

In recent years, many of our reflections on Black History Month have centred on the story of the Windrush generation, but their intrinsic link with the history of the Royal Air Force is not always recognised. Many of those who arrived on the Empire Windrush and subsequent ships were not strangers to Britain in any sense. In fact, they were former RAF service personnel returning to our country—the country they had defended just a few years before. I wish to share with the House some of the stories of these remarkable individuals, so that they are captured in our history.

John Henry Smythe MBE, known as Johnny, was originally from Sierra Leone. He volunteered for the Royal Air Force in 1939 and served as a navigator in 623 or Jamaica Squadron. Shot down over Germany in 1943, he spent 18 months in a Nazi prisoner of war camp before being liberated in 1945. After the war, Smythe worked at the Colonial Office, caring for demobilised Caribbean and African airmen. In a twist of fate, he was the senior officer on the Empire Windrush in 1948 when it was being used to take former personnel back to the Caribbean. Recognising the lack of job opportunities there, Smythe recommended that the men be allowed to return to the UK. That decision marked the beginning of the Windrush generation. He later became a barrister, a Queen’s counsel and Sierra Leone’s Attorney General. He died in 1992 at the age of 82.

Sam King MBE was originally from Jamaica. He had served in the RAF during world war two. Joining in 1944, after responding to an advertisement in Jamaica’s Daily Gleaner newspaper, King arrived in Greenock, Scotland in November 1944, experiencing a shocking temperature drop from 23ºC in Jamaica to 4ºC on his arrival. After three months of training at RAF Hunmanby Moor in Filey, Yorkshire, he was posted to RAF Hawkinge, near Folkestone in Kent, where he served as an aircraft engineer. King was later promoted and received further training at RAF Locking in Somerset. He had several more postings, finishing his wartime service at Dishforth, in Ripon, Yorkshire. After returning to the UK in 1948, Sam re-enlisted in the RAF, serving until 1953. Later in life, Sam became a driving force in the British Caribbean community. He co-founded the Windrush Foundation and became the first black mayor of Southwark in 1983. Sam died in 2016 at the wonderful age of 90. Having checked through Hansard, I can see that his contributions have rightly been recognised before by several parliamentarians, both in this place and the other, who had the honour of being his best friends.

Prince Albert Jacob, known as Jake, was born in Trinidad in 1925 and volunteered for the Royal Air Force at 17 years of age in 1943. During world war two, Jake repaired planes in America and in England, serving at bases in Kirkham, Burtonwood and Carlisle. In 1948 he married his wife Mary, an English woman, despite facing racial prejudice from her family. Jake settled in the Black Country and later in Knowle, building a life in post-war Britain. Although promised medals for his wartime service, Jake only received his war medal, defence medal and veterans badge in February 2023, at the age of 97. That is a stark reminder of the often overlooked contributions of servicemen of colour. I had the pleasure of meeting Jake at the RAF’s 75th anniversary celebrations for Windrush at Edgbaston in June 2003. There is rightly a growing recognition of the Windrush generation’s significance in British history, but there is more we can do to permanently fuse that into our common understanding of who we are and where we come from.

I thank Micah, the RAF’s ethnic minority network and the air historical branch for sharing and preserving these stories. I also thank the RAF for lifting the black bar, allowing these people to serve our country. These men and women made a conscious choice to return to Britain. They saw opportunities to use their skills to forge a better life for themselves and their families. Their decision was an act of agency—a deliberate choice to improve their circumstances while contributing to Britain’s post-war recovery.

That story of service, migration and contribution resonates deeply with many of us. That was the conscious decision that my mother made: to come to this country and build a life for her family. I stand here 47 years later as a proud Zambian and Londoner with a decorated RAF career, representing my constituency as its first black MP. I aim to stand as a shining example of agency and opportunity for all the young people in Leyton and Wanstead, contributing to our shared history alongside those from the Windrush generation who had RAF ties.

I want to finish by reflecting on what it means to have people who reflect so many strands of our national story here in this place. From the pioneering Indian parliamentarian Dadabhai Naoroji, who was elected as the Liberal MP for Finsbury Central in 1892, to the groundbreaking election of my right hon. Friend the Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) as our first black woman MP in 1987, we have seen significant progress. In 2010 there were 27 ethnic minority MPs; by 2019 that number had risen to 66, 10% of all MPs. As of July 2024, we stand at 90 MPs from ethnic minority backgrounds and, critically, 50 of that number are women. Representation is about ensuring that the diverse voices and experiences of our nation are heard in the Chambers where decisions affecting all our lives are made. As we all celebrate Black History Month, let us recommit to ensuring that the diversity we see in our streets, our workplaces and all our constituencies is reflected in these halls of power.

Recognising this shared history makes it all the more crucial to address the Windrush scandal, which continues to demand redress, and I welcome my hon. Friend the Minister’s recognition of that and movement towards doing so. As we know, people with stories like Jake’s, Sam’s and John’s were devastated just a few short years ago due to policies and failure originating from this place. They lost their jobs, their homes, their access to healthcare and, in some cases, their right to remain in the country they had called home. The Windrush compensation scheme was alarmingly slow and complex, and the compensation meagre. The Home Office’s failure under the previous Government to fully implement all the recommendations of Wendy Williams’ Windrush lessons learned review further compounds this injustice. As we stand here in 2024, it is clear that the Windrush scandal is not a closed chapter in our history but an ongoing struggle for justice and recognition, and I welcome our renewed commitment to right these wrongs.

As we reflect on the Windrush generation’s contributions and struggles, we have an opportunity to recognise the ongoing value of migration to our country. In communities such as Leyton and Wanstead, and Plumstead and Woolwich, where I grew up, we see the positive impact of immigration every day in our local buses, schools and GP services. From our family-run shops to dedicated new NHS staff and the entrepreneurial people-to-people links we have to fast-growing countries, our openness and interconnection with the world continues to enrich and strengthen our local areas and the nation as a whole.