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.

BBC World Service Funding

Calvin Bailey Excerpts

Thursday 26th June 2025 Westminster Hall

[Peter Prinsley]

I thank the right hon. Member—my recent squash partner—for his intervention, I agree that we must be sure that whatever the BBC says is true; that must be the case. The BBC Arabic service—the language service—disappeared some time ago, and that is to be regretted.

In Pakistan, a video falsely claimed to show the aftermath of an Indian airstrike on Pakistani air bases. That went viral—it was viewed over 400,000 times—stoking widespread fear and heightening tensions with India over Kashmir, but actually it was mislabelled footage of the 2020 Beirut port explosion. BBC Verify debunked the claim and calmed the situation.

In 2023, a false story spread across the internet that alleged that the newly elected President of Nigeria had forged his university degree. There was anger and unrest until a report by the BBC global disinformation team revealed it to be false, which defused the situation.

Those are not isolated stories; they are part of a growing global pattern. The fight is particularly crucial in an era when young people increasingly consume news online. A few weeks ago, I visited a school in my constituency at Bury St Edmunds and asked the children how they got their news. I said, “Do you get your news online?”, and almost every hand went up. Among 12 to 15-year-olds in the UK, only the BBC can compete effectively with the online tech giants. To continue to compete effectively and divert attention from untrustworthy sources, the BBC needs the resources to excel in what a young person recently told me is called the “attention economy”. With appropriate funding for new digital content, the BBC can significantly expand its impact.

In recent weeks, our attention has undoubtedly been drawn to the middle east, particularly to Iran, and the power of the BBC’s digital reach is no clearer than through the work of BBC Persian. It recently reached over 32 million users on Instagram in just five days, despite the platform’s having been blocked by the Iranians. People were so desperate to view trusted BBC news that they risked their safety by using virtual private networks, or VPNs, to bypass Iran’s strict internet censors. Some posts achieved more than 12 million views.

When Iran restricted internet access, BBC Persian increased broadcasts from eight hours to nearly 24 hours a day and launched an emergency radio service. Despite the fact that there were no reporters on the ground, the team diligently verified information amid severe misinformation campaigns. With adequate funding, the BBC World Service always steps up during global crises, delivering a public good for the benefit of a whole country.

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

What has been happening at BBC Persian over the past few weeks is a case in point, as my hon. Friend said. It has been narrating events in an accessible way and providing insights that are free from the talking points of the propaganda regime into how people in Iran really feel, and how they are experiencing the conflict. It is a public good for the world. It tackles misinformation and develops our soft power, but it also provides important human empathy in the fog of war. We must bear in mind that BBC Persian journalists and their families are being harassed and threatened here in London. Does my hon. Friend agree that we should celebrate their courageous work and back them with the resources that they need to continue?

[Peter Prinsley]

I absolutely agree. I first got into this subject when I met World Service refugee correspondents from BBC Persian and BBC News Russian at the Labour party conference. I so admired what they were doing, and it was a real inspiration for me.

The Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office contributes £104 million a year to the World Service budget of £366 million. The BBC does an awful lot with its licence fee. I was told this week that, for the cost of a cup of coffee a week, it delivers drama, comedy and news across TV and radio, as well as one of the world’s most visited websites. However, money is tight and there are serious fears that its essential work will be chipped away.

Like many, I would describe the BBC World Service as a tool of British soft power. Remarkably, the entire Foreign Office contribution to the BBC World Service is roughly equivalent to the cost of a single F-35 jet. We lately agreed to purchase a whole lot more of those, and that was the right move because we need to boost defence in a dangerous world, but it would be a critical mistake to invest heavily in just one aspect of our security while neglecting another equally essential aspect.

Global inflation and rising costs are putting the World Service in increasing funding difficulties, and without more support there is a risk that it will lose critical technological capabilities, especially among younger audiences. Although broadcast services currently account for two thirds of the World Service’s reach and they remain crucial, the future is digital, and on digital platforms the BBC is not just competing with Russia and China but is up against Facebook, TikTok, Google and the others, so we need sustained investment. Despite all the funding challenges, BBC World Service journalists continue to bravely provide quality journalism in the most challenging circumstances, often at great personal risk. When it comes to Iran we rely heavily on the work of BBC Persian’s brave journalists who face, as my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Mr Bailey) said, threats, asset seizures and passport confiscations just for doing their jobs.

Middle East

Calvin Bailey Excerpts

Monday 23rd June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lammy]

The hon. Gentleman may just have got a soundbite, but I am afraid that I am not going to take any lectures from him on the nuclear question. He has a very sorry record on that serious matter. We have been very clear that diplomacy is the way and that de-escalation is our position. That is what a Government pursue if they are serious about foreign policy, and I would recommend our approach to him.

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

I join the Foreign Secretary in thanking our brave service personnel from RAF Brize Norton for repatriating British citizens from Tel Aviv. In this Armed Forces Week, we are all grateful for their courage and sacrifice.

On Iran, let us be clear about the regime: it has killed thousands upon thousands; upheld the brutal suppression of democracy, as well as the rights of women and of LGBT+ people; and demonstrated a consistent intent to sponsor terrorism and act through proxies with violence to destabilise the region. But all military action must go through the process of international law, and its execution must be based on a plan and intent to return to democracy. Does my right hon. Friend agree that we must do what we can to support de-escalation as soon as possible?

[Mr Lammy]

I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for his service in the RAF, and I am sure that he is thinking about his former colleagues at RAF Akrotiri and across our two sovereign bases in the area, and in particular about our bilateral defence partnerships with so many countries in the region. I am pleased to make it crystal clear that the path through this is a diplomatic one: it is for Iran to return to negotiation and to recognise the power of the global community being absolutely clear that it cannot have a nuclear weapon.

Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories

Calvin Bailey Excerpts

Wednesday 4th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Falconer]

I would like to address the point about F-35s not being used in Ukraine. The importance of the F-35 programme to Ukraine is that the deployment of F-35s allows a redeployment of F-15s, which are used in the defence of Ukraine. Convenient though it would be to the House, it is not possible to divide up defence and national security in that way. I am confident in what I say from the Dispatch Box: the F-35 programme helps to protect Ukraine.

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

I welcome the Minister’s statement and his efforts, but he must sense our frustration at the inability to arrest the situation we are seeing in Gaza and the occupied territories. In the past few days, we have seen 58 people killed and many more injured in and around the GHF aid distribution sites. Those of us who have participated in UN operations in the past know that this should have been foreseen—it confirms all our fears about what happens when humanitarian principles are disregarded. Let us be clear: Israel is continually and deliberately undermining the institutions of international law, and we need to respond more strongly. Israel is not listening. When will the Government announce sanctions on Israel’s extremist Government?

[Mr Falconer]

I thank my hon. and gallant Friend, who served for a long time in the RAF, as well as in the United Nations. These issues are desperate. As he knows, we have taken actions against Israeli settlers and extremists, and we have been clear that if the Israeli Government do not change course, there will be further measures, including targeted sanctions.

British Indian Ocean Territory

Calvin Bailey Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd April 2025 Commons Chamber

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

Yet again, the Opposition are attempting to sow division between the UK and its allies, and indeed to share our allies’ sensitive operational information. If they succeed, it will have impacts on our strategically vital relationships with the US and India. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Opposition should consider waiting until the treaty is ready for scrutiny, rather than damaging our vital national interests in this way?

[Stephen Doughty]

I completely agree—I think some of the speculation has been hugely unhelpful. We have been hugely grateful for the close co-operation between the United Kingdom and the United States throughout the negotiations, and to the Administration for their extensive and detailed engagement, which has helped us to make progress on this deal. As my hon. Friend rightly points out, this agreement has been welcomed by other important partners, including India. China has not welcomed it, of course, because it knows that the agreement will strengthen the presence of the United Kingdom and the United States in the region.

Ukraine

Calvin Bailey Excerpts

Monday 24th February 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lammy]

Ten years ago, there were just four countries meeting the 2% commitment. Today, that has risen to 23. Right across the alliance, countries are understanding that they have to do more. We will set out how we will do more very, very shortly. As the matter today is Ukraine, the right hon. Gentleman will forgive me but I will not discuss issues to do with the British Indian Ocean Territory. I am sure he will have an occasion to do so at oral questions tomorrow.

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

Just over three years ago, I flew the penultimate UK mission into Kyiv to deliver materiel essential to the defence of Ukraine ahead of the illegal full-scale Russian invasion. Since then, Ukraine has been defending European security, the UN charter and liberal democracy against Putin’s assault on those shared interests, and, in the words of the declaration of independence, the “unalienable rights” of

“life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.”

Does the Foreign Secretary agree that to free Ukraine from Putin’s tyranny and imperialist ambition, and to ensure the words of the declaration of independence are realised for all, UK leadership in the co-ordination of European and transatlantic allies is essential?

[Mr Lammy]

Yes, yes, yes, I say to my hon. Friend. I think all of us pay tribute to our armed forces and to his work in our armed forces. It is because of that work over so many years—that sacrifice—that I think the spirit of this country guides us to stand solidly with Ukraine on a cross-party basis. He is right to pray in aid those words that underpin our values, and indeed global values as underpinned in the UN charter. That is what we are fighting for and we will not give up.

Chagos Islands

Calvin Bailey Excerpts

Wednesday 5th February 2025 Commons Chamber

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

The hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage) says he wants to help UK relations with the US, but he has a very funny way of going about it. Opposition Members state over and over again that they understand the desires and the psyche of the US military and its people, yet they ignore the fact that, the ICJ rulings aside, the previous and present US Administrations understand the language of business and agreements, and not the gentlemen’s agreements that have in the past marred discussions and negotiations about the stability and persistent military presence on the islands. It is for that reason that I ask the Minister if he agrees that the confirmation of the legal status of the base will cement our role in the Indo-Pacific and put us in a strong position to counter Chinese influence in the region.

[Stephen Doughty]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right about protecting against malign interests. That is exactly at the heart of the deal. He is also exactly right about the history of why the deal was needed. That was, of course, recognised by the previous Government, which was why they started the negotiations. We wanted to put the base on a secure footing well into the next century, which is what I assume they were trying to do previously and spent 11 rounds negotiating. We have come to a deal that is in our national interest. Most crucially, it is our national security and that of our allies that is at the heart of it. There are multiple safeguards in place in the treaty. They will protect our national security and that of our allies.

British Indian Ocean Territory: Sovereignty

Calvin Bailey Excerpts

Wednesday 18th December 2024 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Doughty]

I do not have details of all the Prime Minister’s meetings. I am sure the right hon. Gentleman can ask the Prime Minister that question himself.

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

For those of us who have served for the US military, who retain genuine and close links with the US military, and who know that this issue does not bring about the concern that others are trying to conflate with it, will the Minister say what his view is on how it is seen by our US military friends?

[Stephen Doughty]

I praise my hon. Friend for his service and work. I am very clear: our allies in the United States and, indeed, our other allies who rely on the important guarantees that the base provides are supportive of the deal. It has been supported across the security apparatus at every level and that is absolutely crucial. We would not have signed up to a deal if it did not protect our interests and those of our closest ally.