UKPOL.CO.UK

Tag: David Lammy

  • David Lammy – 2022 Speech on the NATO Accession of Sweden and Finland

    David Lammy – 2022 Speech on the NATO Accession of Sweden and Finland

    The speech made by David Lammy, the Shadow Foreign Secretary, in the House of Commons on 6 July 2022.

    I thank the Minister for advance sight of her statement. The accession of Finland and Sweden to NATO is an historic decision that is wholeheartedly welcomed by the Labour party. Finland and Sweden will be valuable members of this alliance of democracies that share the values of freedom and the rule of law and that seek peace through collective security.

    Russia’s brutal invasion of Ukraine is a turning point for Europe. As we strengthen UK and European security, it is more important than ever to do so alongside our allies. The great post-war Labour Government was instrumental in the creation of NATO and the signing of the North Atlantic treaty in 1949. Seven decades later, the alliance remains the cornerstone of our defence, and Labour’s commitment to NATO is unshakeable.

    I have visited both Finland and Sweden in recent months to discuss the consequences of Russia’s attack on Ukraine. I have seen the careful, considered and democratic approach that the Governments of both countries have taken to this new security context. They saw the need to think anew and to reassess the assumptions of the past. I pay tribute to the Swedish and Finnish Foreign Ministers, Ann Linde and Pekka Haavisto, for their roles in stewarding this process. It is a remarkable illustration of the dangers that Putin poses that Sweden and Finland have reversed their long-held policies of non-alignment. But is it also a demonstration of the way that Russia’s attack on Ukraine has had the opposite effect from what was intended—strengthening rather than weakening NATO, unifying rather than dividing the alliance. As the recent Madrid summit demonstrated, NATO is responding resolutely to the threat Russia poses and adapting to the challenges of the future.

    I do note, though, that although Finland and Sweden and many other NATO allies, including Germany, have reassessed their defence planning in this new context, the UK has not. Labour, in government, did exactly that after the 9/11 attacks, introducing the longest sustained real-terms increase in spending for two decades. We believe that the Government should reboot defence plans and halt cuts to the Army, as we have been arguing for months. We also believe that it is important to deepen our security co-operation with our European allies and the EU, as a complement to NATO’s role as the bedrock of Euro-Atlantic security.

    Turning to the mechanism of ratification, in normal circumstances we would rightly expect the House to have appropriate time to consider and consent to the ratification of an international treaty of this importance. But these are not normal circumstances, and there are clear risks to both countries from a drawn-out accession process, so we recognise the need for the Government to act with haste in these exceptional circumstances.

    I thank the Foreign Secretary for keeping me up to date on that particular matter, and for the Government’s decision to come to update the House today. It provides an opportunity for the whole House to send a united message of support to our new allies and I hope it will encourage other NATO partners to move swiftly in the ratification process too. Putin has sought division, but has only strengthened Europeans’ unity and NATO’s resolve. We stand together in defence of democracy and the rule of law.

  • David Lammy – 2022 Speech on the Northern Ireland Protocol Bill

    David Lammy – 2022 Speech on the Northern Ireland Protocol Bill

    The speech made by David Lammy, the Shadow Foreign Secretary, in the House of Commons on 27 June 2022.

    Less than three years ago, the Prime Minister stood at the Dispatch Box seeking to persuade the House to support the withdrawal agreement that he negotiated with the European Union. It was, he said,

    “a great deal for England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.”—[Official Report, 19 October 2019; Vol. 666, c. 579.]

    He urged each of us

    “to show the same breadth of vision as our European neighbours”

    with whom he had struck the agreement. He reassured us that

    “Above all, we and our European friends have preserved the letter and the spirit of the Belfast/Good Friday agreement.”—[Official Report, 19 October 2019; Vol. 666, c. 571.]

    His deal, he argued, was

    “in perfect conformity with the Good Friday agreement.”—[Official Report, 19 October 2019; Vol. 666, c. 583.]

    Today, 18 months after it came into force, the Government are taking a wrecking ball to their own agreement.

    Ian Paisley

    I refer the right hon. Gentleman to the very good proposal, made a few moments ago by the right hon. Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn), that we should trigger article 16. Do Her Majesty’s official Opposition agree with that proposal? Does the shadow Secretary of State believe that article 16 should be triggered now?

    Mr Lammy

    What can I say to the hon. Gentleman? The Opposition think that there is a better way forward through negotiation, but at least the proposition that he suggests is legal. I will come on to that in a moment.

    Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)

    The most important thing in all this is peace, and getting power sharing up and running. Will the right hon. Gentleman acquaint the House with the discussions that he has had with the DUP on the solution to the problem, given that the DUP refuses to rejoin power sharing unless the protocol is dealt with? I am sure that he has discussed this with the DUP.

    Mr Lammy

    In our discussions, the DUP had consistently said that it wanted a negotiated settlement—until it saw today’s Bill.

    Several hon. Members rose—

    Mr Lammy

    I will make some progress.

    Ian Paisley

    On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker.

    Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)

    I call Ian Paisley on a point of order, but I hope that this is not a way of disrupting the debate.

    Ian Paisley

    Is it in order for the shadow Secretary of State to indicate that he has had negotiations with the Democratic Unionist party when no such negotiations have taken place, Madam Deputy Speaker?

    Madam Deputy Speaker

    I thank the hon. Gentleman for his point of order. He knows that he is well able to ask to intervene again on the shadow Secretary of State. It undermines our debates if we come up with endless points of order that interrupt them. It is not a fair thing to do. The hon. Gentleman will try to catch my eye later; I suggest that we try to respect each other in the Chamber.

    Mr Lammy rose—

    Ian Paisley

    Will the shadow Secretary of State give way?

    Mr Lammy

    I will not; I will make some progress.

    The Government are bringing the Bill to the House because they object to the text that they negotiated, and the choices that they freely made. They are asking each Member of the House to vote for a Bill that flouts international law. That proposition should never be put to hon. Members. The Bill is damaging and counterproductive. The strategy behind it is flawed. The legal justification for it is feeble. The precedent that it sets is dangerous and the timing could hardly be worse. It divides the United Kingdom and the European Union at a time when we should be pulling together against Putin’s war on the continent, and it risks causing new trade barriers during a cost of living crisis.

    John Redwood

    The protocol makes very clear the primacy of the Good Friday agreement for peace in Northern Ireland and says that the EU will respect our internal market. The EU is doing neither. What is the right hon. Gentleman’s policy to persuade it to do so?

    Mr Lammy

    Negotiate—just as Labour did to get the Good Friday agreement. We negotiate. We do not break international law and alienate our partners and allies not just in Europe but across the world, and the right hon. Gentleman should know better.

    As we debate the Bill, we should ask ourselves some simple questions. First, will it resolve the situation in Northern Ireland? Secondly, is it in the best interests of our great country? Thirdly, is it compatible with our commitment to the rule of law? Let me take each of those in turn.

    Layla Moran (Oxford West and Abingdon) (LD)

    Will the right hon. Member give way?

    Mr Lammy

    I will not at the moment.

    Let us deal with Northern Ireland first as context. None of us in this House doubts that the situation in Northern Ireland is serious. Opposition Members need no reminder of the importance of the Good Friday agreement, which is one of the proudest achievements of a Labour Government, together with parties and communities across Northern Ireland and the Irish Government in Dublin. It was the result of hard work and compromise, graft and statesmanship, a relentless focus on the goal of peace. It was born six months after Bloody Sunday. For more than half my lifetime, Northern Ireland endured the pain and violence of conflict and division. More than 3,500 people were killed. Thousands more were injured. Cities and communities were riven by intolerance and division. I remember what that conflict brought to my city, from the Baltic Exchange attack to the Docklands bombing. Above the door over there and other doors into this Chamber are plaques to Airey Neave, Ian Gow, Sir Anthony Berry, Robert Bradford and, most recently, to Sir Henry Wilson.

    Nearly a quarter of a century has passed since that hopeful Easter in 1998. Since then, we have seen transformational progress. A generation has grown up in a new Northern Ireland, harvesting the fruits of a hard-won peace. That legacy demands that all of us act with the utmost responsibility and sensitivity. We need calm heads at this moment and responsible leadership.

    We recognise that the operation of the protocol and the barriers and checks that were inherent in its design have created new tensions that need to be addressed. Unionists feel that their place in the UK is threatened, and we must listen to all concerns on all sides. We all want to see power sharing restored. The UK Government, the European Union and parties across Northern Ireland need to show willing and act in good faith. However, at its most fundamental level, the Bill will not achieve its objectives. The House cannot impose a unilateral solution when progress demands that both sides agree. This is not an act of good faith, nor is it a long-term solution.

    Only an agreement that works for all sides and delivers for the people and businesses of Northern Ireland will have durability and provide the political stability that businesses crave and the public deserve. Instead, the Bill will make a resolution more difficult. By breaking their obligations, the Government dissolve the little trust that remains; by taking this aggressive action, we make it harder for those on the other side of the table to compromise. On that basis alone, the Bill should be rejected.

    Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson (Lagan Valley) (DUP)

    I recognise the comments that the shadow Secretary of State has made about the Belfast agreement and the need for consensus. He is aware that there is not a consensus in support of the protocol; there never has been one, from day one, in Northern Ireland. I gave time—a lot of time—for the negotiations to progress, but that did not work because the EU fundamentally refuses to change the text of the protocol. If the shadow Secretary of State is serious about getting a solution that works, will he go to the EU and join the Government in making the argument that the EU needs to agree to a negotiation in which it is prepared to change the text of the protocol?

    Mr Lammy

    I am grateful for the right hon. Gentleman’s experience in these matters, and indeed when the protocol was being negotiated in the first place. May I say that I met EU ambassadors in London last week and made that very point? I point him to the speech that I made last week, in which I highlighted exactly what he has just said.

    Sir Bernard Jenkin

    I do not think that anyone in this House can doubt the right hon. Gentleman’s personal commitment to the Belfast/Good Friday agreement, after the remarks that he has made. As someone whose father was nearly blown up in the Grand Hotel, I share that passion, but the problem that the right hon. Gentleman has to grapple with is that he wants a negotiation. What if the EU will not negotiate? What would he do then? That is the position that we are in. We cannot elevate the protocol to be more important than the Belfast/Good Friday agreement. That is the necessity we face.

    Mr Lammy

    I accept the sincerity with which the hon. Gentleman makes his remarks. Let me just say that they have said that trust is at an all-time low. The question for this House is whether the Bill maintains or assists trust, given that ultimately this will be an agreement and it will be negotiated.

    Liam Byrne (Birmingham, Hodge Hill) (Lab)

    My right hon. Friend is making a brilliant speech. Is he aware of comments by the US trade representative Ambassador Tai, from Speaker Pelosi and indeed from a host of our American allies in Congress? They have been very clear with us that there will be no US-UK trade deal unless there is a durable way forward on the Northern Ireland question. Not only does this reckless approach risk destroying relations with the EU, but it puts a deal with America at risk.

    Mr Lammy

    My right hon. Friend is exactly right. I have been to Washington on three occasions in the past six months, and I can say that across the political divide, Republicans and Democrats have raised the issue. On my most recent visit, they were aghast; they had not seen the content of the Bill at that stage, but they were aghast at the proposition. Perhaps the Northern Ireland Secretary might tell us what our American friends and allies have said in relation to the Bill now that they have seen the draft.

    My second question is whether the Bill is in the best interests of this country. As we stand here today, Britain faces the worst cost of living crisis in decades. Inflation is at more than 9%, bills are rising, energy costs are soaring and supply chains are under pressure. It beggars belief why, at this time, the Government would choose to risk new frictions in our trading relations with the EU. They cannot get away with abdicating responsibility for this reckless conduct. If we choose to break a contract, we cannot plausibly expect the other side to take no action in response. We cannot claim that we did not foresee the consequences. Of course the European Union would respond, just as we would if the situation were reversed. I will wager that the Foreign Secretary would be one of the first people to complain if the boot were on the other foot.

    A game of brinkmanship with the European Union will only add to our economic problems, but this is not just about economic concerns, important though they are. We must also see the bigger picture. For four months, the Putin regime has fought a bloody war against Ukraine. As a Parliament, we have been united in our support for Ukraine and our staunch opposition to Russia’s aggression. NATO allies and European partners have stood together. How can this be the right moment to deepen a diplomatic row? How can this be the right time to tell our friends and partners that we cannot be relied on? I cannot help noting that some Conservative Members told us that the situation in Ukraine was too serious—that this was not the right time to change Prime Minister. Apparently, however, it is not serious enough to prevent us from starting a diplomatic fight with some of our closest allies.

    Thirdly, is the Bill compatible with international law? [Hon. Members: “ Yes.”] Quite simply, the Bill breaks international law. It provides for a wholesale rewrite of an international treaty in domestic law. One of the most troubling aspects is the dangerous legal distortion that is used to justify it. The doctrine of necessity is not an excuse for states to abandon their obligations. It exists to do precisely the opposite: to constrain the circumstances in which states can legitimately claim that their hand has been forced. It requires this action to be the “only way” possible to resolve the issue, but the Government have not used article 16 and still say that a negotiated solution is possible. It requires a grave and imminent peril, but the Government have chosen a route that will involve months of parliamentary wrangling to fix issues such as unequal VAT rates, which no reasonable person could consider a matter of grave peril. It requires the invoking state not to have contributed to the situation of necessity, but the problems are a direct result of the choices that the Government made when negotiating with the European Union. If they were not, we would not need to change the text of the protocol at all.

    Joanna Cherry

    The right hon. Gentleman is making a powerful speech, particularly on the legal points. He has listed all the problems with the Government’s legal note of advice. Does he, like me, find it interesting that, whenever any of us raise these points, no Conservative Member is capable of answering them?

    Mr Lammy

    The hon. and learned Lady knows that there is not a serious Queen’s Counsel in the country who would support the use of the doctrine of necessity in the way in which the Government have sought to use it, and I think that Conservative Members do as well.

    Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)

    If I heard him aright, the right hon. Gentleman indicated earlier that the Government should have used article 16. He said, “They have not yet used article 16”, indicating that they should use it before going down this road. It was, however, the hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Louise Haigh), who I think is the shadow Northern Ireland Secretary, who said that triggering article 16 would “prolong and deepen” uncertainty in Northern Ireland and pose another huge risk to stability there. Does this now mean that the Government should have triggered article 16, or that they should not—or maybe that there is a disagreement, or maybe that it will not be decided until after the passage of the Bill?

    Mr Lammy

    I think that the right hon. Gentleman is putting words in my mouth. Article 16 arises in relation to the defence that the Government suggest: the doctrine of necessity—that is, they have not used it and the point of using it is that, at the very least, it would be legal.

    “Pacta sunt servanda”. Agreements must be kept. This is the essence of international law: the solemn promise of states acting in good faith and upholding their commitments to treaties that they have agreed. How would we react if a country we had renegotiated with did the same thing and simply disregarded the commitments we had mutually agreed on? I do not doubt that, if an authoritarian state used necessity to justify its actions in breaking a treaty in the manner the Government are proposing to do through this Bill, the Foreign Secretary and many of us across this House would condemn it.

    Since the right hon. Lady became Foreign Secretary, the Foreign Office has issued countless statements and press releases urging others to meet their international obligations. They include Iran under the joint comprehensive plan of action; China under the joint declaration of Hong Kong; and Russia under the Budapest memorandum. In just the last fortnight, the Foreign Office under her leadership has publicly called on Bolivia, Sri Lanka, Myanmar, Nicaragua, South Sudan, Eritrea and Ethiopia to meet their international obligations. Hypocrisy is corrosive to our foreign policy and I know that Members from across the House share these concerns.

    Chris Bryant

    I take this point from my right hon. Friend’s mention of the Budapest accord: when the UK signs a document, it really needs to stand by it. We did not stand by the Budapest accord either. We did not make sure that the text was proper before we brought it to Parliament, and that is one of the reasons we have the problems we have today, is it not?

    Mr Lammy

    My hon. Friend is absolutely right. When we use the word “honourable” across this House, it means something. It is about the integrity of this place and about the pre-eminent position that this Parliament and this country find themselves in on matters of international affairs. That is why this is such a sombre moment.

    Robin Millar (Aberconwy) (Con)

    The right hon. Gentleman is making a thoughtful speech and these matters deserve thoughtful consideration, but could he take advantage of his time at the Dispatch Box to tell us whether he would change the protocol? If so, how would he change it? How does he think the process of negotiation, which has failed so far, would achieve those changes?

    Mr Lammy

    I want to make some progress, but I have said that this party would negotiate, just as we negotiated the Good Friday agreement.

    Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)

    The shadow Secretary of State has made much of the Government abandoning their obligations, but surely the obligation in the protocol was designed from the EU’s point of view to protect the EU single market. How does this Bill not give that guarantee to the EU, when goods going into the Republic will be checked, when there will be severe penalties on those who try evade those checks and when any firms producing in Northern Ireland will have to comply with EU rules when they are sending goods to the Republic? Surely that safeguards the single market and the obligations will be met.

    Mr Lammy

    Yes, it needs to be improved, but the question is how. What is the best method to achieve that? Is breaking international law and placing ourselves in a situation in which our EU partners do not trust us the best way?

    Mr Francois

    Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

    Mr Lammy

    Let me just make some progress, because I have been on my feet for a long time and lots of hon. Members want to contribute to the debate.

    Our country’s reputation is a matter beyond party. It is hard won and easily lost. When this Bill was first mooted, the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May) asked

    “what such a move would say about the United Kingdom and its willingness to abide by treaties that it has signed.”—[Official Report, 10 May 2022; Vol. 714, c. 38.]

    The hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill) said in a thoughtful piece on this legislation last week that our country

    “benefits greatly from our reputation for keeping our word and upholding the rule of law…We should be very wary indeed of damaging that standing.”

    The right hon. Member for North Thanet (Sir Roger Gale) said,

    “I don’t see how…any member of parliament can vote for a breach of international law.”

    Lord Anderson and Lord Pannick, who are among the most distinguished lawyers in the country, have called this Bill a “clear breach” of international law that

    “shows a lack of commitment to the rule of law and to a rules-based international order that damages the reputation of the UK.”

    And Sir Jonathan Jones QC, formerly the most senior lawyer in Government, has described the legal justification for the Bill as “hopeless.” This is, of course, the same distinguished lawyer who resigned last time the Government proposed legislation in violation of their own treaty commitments. On that occasion, the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland had the temerity to tell the House the truth about the Government’s plan to break international law in a “limited and specific way.”

    This Bill breaks the withdrawal agreement in a broad and extensive way while maintaining the pretence that it is somehow compliant. I am not sure what is worse—to be open about breaking the law or to dress up a treaty violation with this flimsy and transparent legal distortion.

    Mr Francois

    The right hon. Gentleman is making a thoughtful speech. Will he confirm to the House that he has actually read the Northern Ireland protocol? If he has read it, will he remind the House of what article 13.8 says about the ability to amend or even supersede the protocol entirely?

    Mr Lammy

    The right hon. Gentleman has, like me, been in this House for many years. This is too serious an issue for any shadow Minister or Minister not to have spent the whole weekend working hard on the Bill, as he knows. He also knows that we all come to this House hopeful of reaching agreement, but very conscious of the lawbreaking that is going forward, so of course I have read it.

    Undermining international law runs counter to Britain’s interest, damages Britain’s moral authority and political credibility, and risks emboldening dictators and authoritarian states around the world. It serves the best interests of those who want to weaken the rule of law, and it is unbefitting of this great country.

    This Bill not only contravenes international law but affords the Government extraordinary powers and denies proper respect to the role of this House. Fifteen of the 26 clauses confer powers on Ministers. The Hansard Society, not an organisation known for hyperbole, has called the powers given to Ministers “breathtaking.” Professor Catherine Barnard of Cambridge University has called these powers “eye wateringly broad.”

    Ministers may use these powers whenever they feel it appropriate. Clause 22 allows them to amend Acts of Parliament, and clause 15 gifts them the power to disapply other parts of the protocol, potentially including the article on democratic consent in Northern Ireland. Ministers could use secondary legislation to change not just primary law but an international treaty. This is a power grab so broad it would make Henry VIII blush.

    Clause 19 allows Ministers to implement a new deal with the European Union without primary legislation. Do Conservative Back Benchers really want to give any Foreign Secretary that power? This is brazen Executive overreach. It is an act of disrespect to Parliament and all MPs should reject it.

    Karin Smyth

    As well as disrespecting Members and Parliament, the Bill is extraordinarily disrespectful to the representatives of people in Northern Ireland who will have no say on these provisions, as the Secretary of State is grabbing all the power.

    Mr Lammy

    My hon. Friend makes a very important point. Should this Bill reach Committee stage, I hope that proper scrutiny and consideration will be given to the powers that the Foreign Secretary is taking for herself and denying this Parliament and Northern Ireland.

    Colum Eastwood

    Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

    Mr Lammy

    I must make some progress, because I am very conscious that we will run out of time.

    As I have outlined, the Bill is damaging and counterproductive, and it is also unnecessary. We want to see checks reduced to an absolute necessary minimum, and there are practical solutions if we work to find them. Let us lower the temperature and focus on what works.

    For months, we have been urging the Government to negotiate a veterinary agreement with the European Union that could remove the need for the vast majority of checks across the Irish sea on goods travelling from Great Britain to Northern Ireland. New Zealand has such an agreement. Why cannot we have one? I do not believe that it is beyond the ability of a British Government to negotiate one. That could be the basis of other steps to reduce friction, including improving data sharing. I am not one of those people who believe that only the UK Government need to show flexibility; the EU has been too rigid as well. However, the only way forward is to work hard on negotiation and compromise. I believe that with hard work and determination, with creativity and flexibility, we can overcome those challenges.

    This Bill is not the way forward. It will exacerbate the problems it hopes to solve. It will gift Ministers unaccountable powers. It will divide us from our friends and allies in Europe when we should be united. It damages our country’s reputation. It will break international law. The rule of law is not a Labour or a Conservative value; it is our common inheritance. Since Magna Carta in 1215, it is no exaggeration to say that it is one of the greatest contributions that our country has made to the world. No party owns it. No Government should squander it. Britain should be a country that keeps its word. Let us stand for that principle and vote against this Bill tonight.

  • David Lammy – 2022 Dr. Jean Mayer Global Citizenship Award Address

    David Lammy – 2022 Dr. Jean Mayer Global Citizenship Award Address

    The speech made by David Lammy, the Shadow Foreign Secretary, in the United States on 31 March 2022.

    Thank you to the institute for Global Leadership and The Fletcher School at Tufts University for hosting me to speak about foreign policy at this extremely important moment.

    In the late 1990s I had my first taste of Massachusetts when I studied just a short bus ride away…

    …at Harvard Law School.

    It was an inspiring time.

    I will never forget my first big exposure to the American constitution.

    The first lesson I learned was that democracy as proclaimed by America’s founding fathers is…

    …always has been…

    …and always will be…

    …a work in progress.

    I also learned that the great story of the 20th century is one of how different groups…

    …the working class, people of colour, women, LGBT+…

    …fought hard to secure rights long denied their forebears.

    Back in the late 90s, so much was changing.

    We were living in the wake of two liberal revolutions.

    The first was social and cultural…

    …with its roots in the swinging 60s.

    The second was economic…

    …the free market revolution set alight by Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher in the 1980s.

    The Soviet Union had collapsed not long before.

    Communism and autocracy had capitulated to capitalism and democracy.

    Francis Fukuyama suggested this marked the “end-point of mankind’s ideological evolution…

    …and the universalisation of Western liberal democracy as the final form of human government.”

    Progressives were winning or about to win on both sides of the Atlantic.

    Bill Clinton was in the White House.

    Tony Blair had just won a Labour landslide in the UK.

    The march towards a 21st century future was filled with hope.

    But as we reached the global financial crisis of 2008…

    …that hope had started to evaporate.

    The twin liberal revolutions had come at a high price.

    Creating a hyper-individualistic culture…

    Where rights overtook responsibilities.

    Where we could reach billions of others instantly on our smartphones…

    …but had fewer meaningful connections.

    Where the rich got richer…

    …inequality accelerated.

    …and the pursuit of profit was prioritised over democratic values.

    The age of individualism was defined by another paradox.

    The more atomised we became…

    …the more we sought belonging in tribal identities.

    From the relatively benign…

    …to the outright destructive.

    Islamist Extremism.

    Far-Right terrorism.

    Organised crime gangs.

    Online, our opinions did not gain the nuance that results from sophisticated debate.

    We gained access to infinite amounts of information, but we lost the guardrails that sorted fact from fabrication.

    Algorithms designed by tech companies to grip eyeballs pushed many of us to new extremes.

    The common ground upon which democracies depend began to crumble.

    And malign actors…

    …including governments like Vladimir Putin’s…

    …turned to ethno-nationalist authoritarian politics…

    …and exploited online spaces to interfere in our democracies…

    …with disinformation and lies.

    Abroad, Putin took advantage of unsuccessful Western interventions…

    …the decline of American hegemony…

    …and a newly multi-polar world.

    He invaded and still occupies part of Georgia.

    He annexed Crimea.

    And sought to carve off parts of eastern Ukraine.

    He used the strength of his armed forces to prop up the monstrous Bashar Al Assad who used chemical weapons against the Syrian people.

    …and helped drive a refugee crisis that reached Europe…

    Which was seized upon by hard right populists to inflame new divisions between Us and Them.

    Meanwhile…

    …authoritarians and their acolytes…

    …from Nigel Farage, to Donald Trump, to Matteo Salvini and Marine Le Pen…

    …publicly expressed sympathies with Vladimir Putin…

    …as they rose to prominence in our own democracies.

    Parading their illiberalism as patriotism.

    Pretending to be protectors of their nations…

    …while attacking the values of freedom, equality and democracy that they were founded upon.

    At the same time, Putin saw we were in a cost-of-living crisis…

    …A climate crisis…

    …And a global pandemic.

    After years of sowing disunity in our democracies…

    …exploiting the vulnerabilities left by the two liberal revolutions…

    …it is no coincidence Putin saw this as our moment of maximum weakness…

    …and chose it as the moment to start his barbaric and illegal invasion of Ukraine.

    Under the fog of disorder, he thought he could act with impunity.

    But the strength and unity of the opposition Putin has faced shows he cannot.

    Remarkable and courageous defence of their homeland by the Ukrainian people.

    Tougher global sanctions than many thought possible.

    Unity within an EU previously considered fractured.

    A turning point in defence policy for Germany, Sweden, Finland and Poland.

    NATO with more focus than ever since the cold war.

    And 141 countries in the UN’s general assembly voting to condemn Putin’s war of aggression.

    Despite the strong reaction we have seen…

    …this is not a moment to be complacent.

    It is time for a radical re-think in foreign policy…

    …and a reboot of our diplomacy.

    Mistakes of the west

    Putin’s invasion is shocking.

    The images of tanks rolling across the borders of European nations reopens the deepest wounds of our continent’s history.

    Many have said the world changed on February 24th.

    It did.

    The horrific war in Ukraine is solely of Putin’s making…

    …but it also highlighted contradictions in the West’s relationship with Russia…

    …as well as flaws in our broader foreign policy assumptions.

    Many in Europe believed the era of wars between states was over.

    We reshaped our security, defence, intelligence and diplomacy to tackle different threats – allowing core capabilities to dwindle.

    Just months before Russia’s invasion, Boris Johnson said that the era of tank battles on European soil was over…

    …Now we see tanks rolling across frontiers in Europe.

    Borders changed by force.

    Nuclear threats issued.

    We must adjust our mindset and adapt our thinking.

    For too long, Western governments…

    …including Britain’s Conservatives…

    …believed they could ignore domestic policies which undermined our

    foreign policy.

    We tolerated dependence on Russian oil and gas…

    …funding Putin’s war chest…

    …regardless of his aggression and despite the urgent need to decarbonise.

    Dirty Russian money…

    …the loot of Putin’s dictatorship…

    …was embraced…

    From our football clubs to our politics…

    …Oligarchs and kleptocrats used Britain’s capital as both the hiding place and service industry for their ill-gotten gains.

    A spider’s web of dirty money spread across London.

    Fuelling crime on our streets.

    Making property unaffordable.

    Laundering reputations.

    Silencing critics.

    And sustaining Putin’s authoritarian regime.

    This disregard for the contradictions in our policy has been exposed by this crisis.

    We must end the hypocrisy.

    Too often we saw the world as we wanted it to be…

    …not as it was.

    Some believed Putin could be moderated and influenced by our engagement…

    What the Germans called

    …change through trade.

    We have repeatedly been overly optimistic, even naïve…

    …particularly when we stood to profit.

    Even when Putin broke international law…

    …and invaded his neighbours…

    …our responses were weak.

    The tame response to the seizure of Crimea in 2014 is one of the reasons we could not deter Putin this time around.

    We must finally be realistic about the worldview in the Kremlin.

    We’ve long known that Putin saw the collapse of the Soviet Union not as liberation but as humiliation…

    …A catastrophe with consequences he told us – time and again – that he wanted to reverse.

    Putin seeks a sphere of influence…

    …a reconstituted Russian empire…

    …whether we like it or not.

    Putin believes that domestic survival depends on total dominance of the political sphere…

    …the elimination of opponents…

    …and the fanning of bigotry, nationalism and nostalgia.

    He will ruthlessly pursue Russia’s interests as he sees them…

    …in zero-sum terms.

    And he has taken lessons from the Arab Spring.

    Seeing democratic revolutions as contagious.

    When he saw the 2014 democratic revolution in Ukraine, he feared that dangers of one in Russia as well.

    It is time to understand Putin on his own terms.

    But it is not only Britain’s Conservative government which made strategic mistakes on Russia.

    Trump’s disastrous spell in the White House…

    …Where he cosied up to dictators from Putin to Kim Jong Un…

    …while distancing the US from its traditional allies in the EU…

    …and institutions like NATO…

    …shows the danger of turning against the institutions the West has created.

    For too long parts of the left…

    …even some members of my own party…

    … falsely divided the world into two camps.

    America and the West on one side…

    …and their victims on the other.

    This has never been right…

    …but this view has now been exposed for all to see as a farce.

    The rising aggression of countries including Russia, China and Iran…

    …In particular Putin’s barbaric and illegal invasion of Ukraine…

    …are definitive proof the world’s wrongs do not all stem from western actions.

    We must confront our own historic mistakes…

    …but if we fail to see beyond them…

    …and falsely believe Western nations have nothing to contribute…

    …we miss the value of making common cause for people fighting for democracy around the world.

    And we forget the value of the international institutions that arose to protect us all.

    Lessons from the Cold War

    Many people have drawn historical analogies with our current situation.

    Some have suggested we are entering a new Cold War.

    The Cold War analogy has limitations.

    The world today is far more interdependent and economically interconnected than it was in the days of the Iron Curtain.

    Unlike China, Russia is not a serious economic competitor to the West.

    It does not represent a coherent ideology like Communism.

    It is a nuclear superpower but it is a middling and unbalanced economy in freefall…

    …with a leader clinging to a blood and soil nationalism of the past.

    But there are some reflections we can draw from the Cold War that may be useful for the months and years ahead.

    We need a patient, long-term strategy.

    To equip ourselves for the task of a sustained confrontation…

    …not just with Putin but with Putinism and its imitators.

    Dictatorships are no longer controlled by one bad actor in isolation.

    But by interlinked networks of illicit finance, security services and peddlers of misinformation.

    Not only inside one country, or even one region.

    But across the world.

    They aren’t unified by one particular political ideology.

    But the shared desire to hold power at any cost to their people – and enrich themselves.

    To counter this network of Putinists, we must show that we can ditch the short-termism.

    …On energy, on economics, on politics and on security…

    …that for too long has dogged our approach.

    The first step to signalling this change should be to ban all foreign campaign contributions from our politics…

    …saying a clear no to malign interference in our democracies.

    And we must properly regulate big tech…

    …so that it is forced to quickly remove disinformation campaigns…

    …or face punishing fines.

    We must also double down on unity.

    Our strength comes from our alliances…

    …rooted in common values…

    …not the transactional marriages of convenience or coercion, which characterise Russia’s alliances.

    We must capitalise on the united economic front that has been formed against Putin.

    In the Cold War, there were mechanisms like COCOM…

    …the Coordinating Committee for Common Export Controls…

    …to sustain common approaches to export controls.

    We should consider whether we need new structures to ensure the UK, US, Europe, Japan, Australia, Canada and others partners can maintain a common approach.

    And we should seek to build the widest possible diplomatic coalition in opposition to this war.

    This neo-imperialism is not just a challenge to the West.

    If one sovereign UN member-state can be carved up on a whim, all states are threatened.

    The Cold War also teaches us the imperative to manage the risks of escalation.

    Both lessons to learn and mistakes to avoid.

    Preventing a catastrophic conflict took strategy and resolve, diplomacy and deterrence.

    Even before this crisis we had already lost too much of the architecture of arms control built in the Cold War and post-Cold War period…

    …such as the INF and Open Skies Treaties.

    We should maximise pressure on Putin, and support the Ukrainians in their fight, including with arms…

    …but also keep open channels of communication, maintain military transparency and seek to avoid miscalculation.

    NATO was right to rule out a No-Fly Zone, which would bring Russia and NATO into direct conflict.

    But Russia must know our absolute commitment to the principle that if a NATO Ally is the victim of an armed attack…

    …each and every other member of the Alliance will respond.

    And we need to be ready for modern acts of aggression…

    …with accelerating and enhancing joint cyber defences among NATO member states.

    Finally the Cold War teaches us that we must remain open to the Russian people.

    Ordinary Russians did not start this war.

    Many have courageously protested against it.

    It takes real courage to challenge your government if you live in an authoritarian state.

    We must always distinguish between Putin and the Russian people.

    And reach as many as we can with objective news.

    Allies should coordinate to get credible information to the Russian public through whatever means available…

    … with direct financial and diplomatic support to civil society and independent journalism.

    We must think creatively about how to strengthen the voices of moderation and reform.

    And we must be a safe haven to Russians fleeing political persecution.

    Labour’s Foreign Policy

    Living in an age of authoritarians means re-assessing our strategic priorities.

    This must mark a turning point for Britain, and for our allies.

    After years of distraction and insularity, Britain can carve a new leading position on the world stage.

    First, we must strengthen our defences and lead the debate about the future of European security.

    Britain has left the EU. The task now is to make Brexit work. On both sides of the channel.

    It is time to leave behind the petty diplomatic spats with our neighbours pursued by this UK government…

    …designed only to serve short term domestic political interests.

    The British government must stop putting peace on the island of Ireland at risk…

    …with its reckless threats to the Good Friday Agreement.

    We need a government that can rebuild relations of trust and mutual respect with our closest neighbours on the continent…

    …based on our shared values and common interests.

    We need to end more than a decade of cuts to the army and rethink the assumptions in the Integrated Review.

    The Government has pursued an Indo-Pacific tilt…

    …but it must not do so at the cost of our commitments to European security.

    As war ravages parts of our continent…

    …we need to put past Brexit divisions behind us.

    Stop seeking rows with European partners…

    …and use this moment to explore new ways to rebuild relations with European allies through a new UK-EU security pact.

    Second, we must sprint towards decarbonisation and end our dependency on dirty fossil fuels.

    Much of the funding for Putin’s war machine has come from us and our partners…

    …running our industries…

    …heating our homes…

    ….and filling our cars with oil and gas from Russia…

    …$700m per day from Europe…

    We can revolutionise that if we have the will.

    The UK Government has said that the UK will end Russian oil imports to the UK by the end of 2022.

    We support this.

    But on its own this move will not shield us from rocketing energy prices.

    Our Prime Minister’s moves to fill the gap of Russian energy have so far been to look for new authoritarians from which to buy oil.

    Whether Iran, Saudi Arabia or elsewhere….

    Short-termist.

    Ill-judged.

    And not learning the lessons of Putin.

    Fossil fuels empower the worst sorts of dictators

    The only true form of energy independence is through clean energy.

    This is why a Labour government in Britain would quadruple investment in a Green recovery…

    …£225bn over the next 8 years.

    Third, we must finally end our role as a facilitator of illicit finance and cleanse our society from dirty money…

    …not just from Russia…

    …but from corrupt elites across the world who have used Britain and our overseas territories to hide their ill-gotten wealth under our noses.

    Fourth, we must restore our soft power

    Because it is not only tyrants’ actions we must change…

    …but the minds of their publics.

    The United States and the UK together do so much good through the development we lead across the world.

    But Britain has stepped back from its former leadership, cutting billions in aid, and mismanaging the merger of our development and foreign ministries, leaving them less than the sum of their parts.

    Facing the largest refugee crisis in Europe since the Second World War…

    …the importance of humanitarian aid and long-term development could not be greater.

    One of the UK’s greatest exports is the BBC World Service…

    …which plays a unique role…

    …both in delivering information to populations living in authoritarian regimes…

    …and embodying the free speech and independent media that are cornerstones of our democracies…

    …reaching nearly 400m people per week.

    In the first weeks of Putin’s invasion…

    …the BBC’s Russian language service audience tripled, and has now been subject to new restrictions in Russia.

    But the fact that just 13% of Russians see Russia as the aggressor in Putin’s illegal war shows the scale of the task.

    A Labour government would truly value the BBC World Service.

    …alongside a refreshed British Council

    And be a beacon for our values around the world.

    Conclusion

    I started this speech by saying my time in the US taught me the great story of the 20th century is one of how minority groups gained rights through liberal democracy.

    If this is true, the story of the 21st century is so far a story of the reverse.

    Every year freedom house releases a report of the state of global democracy.

    This year’s was titled: ‘The Global Expansion of Authoritarian Rule’

    These times are dark…

    …but they are not without promise.

    We should take encouragement from Vladimir Putin’s current failure to achieve his objectives in Ukraine.

    Russia’s huge, poorly organised army being out fought by Ukraine’s smaller but more skilful and determined troops…

    …Because unlike the Russians, they actually know what they’re fighting for.

    It’s the same thing that generations of British and American troops, diplomats, activists, and ordinary people have struggled for…

    …the hope that our democracies are supposed to represent.

    Ukraine’s formidable and courageous leader…

    …Volodymyr Zelenskyy…

    …has called upon our collective conscience…

    …he has shown what it means to fight for a democratic nation state.

    Using Ukraine’s heroics as inspiration…

    …Together Britain, the United States, the EU and the rest of our allies and partners around the world have the chance to move past the age of authoritarians.

    Reaffirming our commitment to the values we share…

    …freedom, democracy and the rule of law.

    Restoring the international institutions that spread them.

    And giving hope to our nations once again.

  • David Lammy – 2022 Speech on Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe and Anoosheh Ashoori

    David Lammy – 2022 Speech on Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe and Anoosheh Ashoori

    The speech made by David Lammy, the Shadow Foreign Secretary, in the House of Commons on 16 March 2022.

    I thank the Foreign Secretary for giving me advance sight of the statement. For too long, the Iranian Government have been depriving British nationals of their liberty to use them as political bargaining chips. Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe has been detained in Iran for almost six years. Anoosheh Ashoori has faced the same fate for almost five years. The suffering they have endured during those years is unimaginable. The moments of laughter, joy and hope that they and their families have lost are irretrievable The Iranian Government are entirely to blame for these acts of cruelty. The whole House will be overjoyed that their detention has now come to an end, and that Nazanin and Anoosheh can return to British soil to be reunited with their families and take the breath of freedom once again. We must pay tribute to their tireless families, who have shown extraordinary strength, resilience and courage in the face of an unimaginable ordeal.

    I also give credit to my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Kilburn (Tulip Siddiq) for all her efforts over so many years, and to my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham East (Janet Daby) for continuing to raise these issues. I give them credit for their tireless work in campaigning to secure the freedom of their constituents. We join the Government in thanking the Government of Oman for their help. I also give credit to the tireless work of British officials, as well as to the Foreign Secretary for her role in securing justice. She has shown more skills in diplomacy than her bungling boss, who appeared to do more damage than help while he held her current post.

    Serious lessons need to be learned from this appalling episode. We need stronger international measures to combat the use of arbitrary detention as a political tool and to end hostage diplomacy. We also need a review of these cases. We need to understand what could have been done by the British Government to secure these releases sooner. I note that the Foreign Secretary said that she had

    “stepped up these efforts over the last six months.”

    I give her credit for that and welcome it, but I want to ask her what efforts were not taken by her predecessors that could have been. A review must also consider whether comments made by Ministers contributed to the extended detention. It is also good news that Morad Tahbaz has been released on furlough. Can the Foreign Secretary elaborate on the next steps to support his case? We note that other British nationals are still in detention and seeking help from the British Government. Can she update the House on the latest number and on what efforts are in place to help them?

    We welcome the Government’s parallel announcement that the IMS debt has been repaid. We have long called for the Government to find a way to pay back that internationally recognised legitimate debt. What guarantees have the Government been given that this sum of money will be used only for humanitarian purposes? Today, though, let us focus on the main point of this statement. The whole House and the whole country can share in the triumph of welcoming Nazanin and Anoosheh home.

  • David Lammy – 2022 Speech on Sanctions on Russia

    David Lammy – 2022 Speech on Sanctions on Russia

    The speech made by David Lammy, the Shadow Foreign Secretary, in the House of Commons on 28 February 2022.

    I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of her statement, and for the briefing that she continues to give me on Privy Council terms.

    We have all been inspired by the gallant and tenacious actions of Ukrainians in defence of their country. This is true courage under fire. President Zelensky has epitomised the bravery, dignity and resolve of a nation fighting back, and fighting for values that we all share—democracy, freedom and the rule of law. The Foreign Secretary is right when she says that Putin’s invasion is not so far going to plan, but does she agree that we must not let our focus slip for even a second? We will continue to stand united with our allies and partners, supporting Ukraine and opposing this outrageous campaign of aggression.

    This morning, I had the honour, with the shadow Defence Secretary my right hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth and Dearne (John Healey), of meeting Ukraine’s ambassador. He thanks all sides of this House for the united opposition we have shown to Vladimir Putin’s illegal war and the support we continue to show for Ukrainian sovereignty. Putin is not only facing a united west; he is facing a truly United Kingdom. Together, we have enacted sanctions that are having a strong effect. The rouble has crashed by over 40%, the main borrowing rate is up 20%, and inflation is reportedly hitting about 65% per year. Oligarchs are being frozen out of their bank accounts and the central bank of Russia is being blocked from part of the $640 billion war chest that it holds in foreign reserves. Labour’s priority is to cut off Putin’s rogue state from our economic system and to undermine his campaign of aggression in Ukraine.

    We recognise that on 24 February the European security order changed. Our continent faces a transformed strategic context. Our world is at the start of a new era. I pay tribute to the political courage shown by all our partners, particularly our allies in Germany who have recognised that by taking the difficult and brave decisions to provide Ukraine with lethal weapons for its fight and to commit to the significant increases in defence spending that this new reality demands.

    Yesterday, President Putin raised the alert level of Russian nuclear forces. As the five nuclear weapon states, including Russia, reaffirmed in January, a nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought. What assessment has the Foreign Secretary made of that decision, given the understandable concern it will have caused among the public?

    Turning to sanctions, we welcome the further steps the Government have announced today. Labour has been calling for some time for progress by the UK, the EU and the US on cutting off Russian banks from SWIFT. The moves finally to clamp down on dirty money—so long demanded by Labour and colleagues across the House—are long overdue. It is regrettable that it has taken so long and a crisis of this nature for such action, but we welcome the steps and will study them carefully. However, there is still more the Government can do.

    The last time I stood at the Dispatch Box, I asked what steps the Government had taken to ensure that members of Russia’s legislature, the Duma, could be sanctioned. Still today, I am waiting for that answer. Similarly, although I welcome the Foreign Secretary’s action against Russia’s financial sector, the Government should go further to ensure sanctions can also be placed against Russia’s extractive industries, energy industries and technological industries. We must ensure that the insurance industry cannot underwrite and de-risk Putin’s war. As I said at my last time at the Dispatch Box, it is vital that the sanctions are broad enough to inflict damage on every aspect of Russia’s economy. We welcome the moves the Government have taken to ensure Russia is cut out of the SWIFT banking system, but can the Foreign Secretary explain what dialogue she has had with our allies on cutting the country out of the Visa-Mastercard system, too?

    Finally, can the Foreign Secretary give assurances that Putin will also feel the consequences of his despicable actions in terms of international opportunities available to the country in sports and culture? The diplomatic unity of the west is crucial, but we must also widen the global coalition opposing the war. Some countries, such as Kenya, have spoken out with clarity and elegance against Putin’s imperialism, but others have stayed silent. Some are even allies of the UK and fellow democracies. What steps is the Foreign Secretary taking to ensure the widest possible range of voices speaks up in opposition to this war?

    As well as commending the bravery of the Ukrainians defending their country, we must also praise the courage of the ordinary Russians taking to the streets of Moscow, St Petersburg and beyond under the threat of repression to show their opposition to this despot. This is the fifth day of fighting. Ukraine is still facing an all-out war from Putin’s army. It is a mark of the bravery of Ukraine’s forces that neither Kyiv nor Kharkiv have fallen. We salute their courage, and this whole House will continue to stand with them.

  • David Lammy – 2022 Comments on the Attack on Him and Keir Starmer

    David Lammy – 2022 Comments on the Attack on Him and Keir Starmer

    The comments made by David Lammy, the Shadow Foreign Secretary, on 7 February 2022.

    No surprise the conspiracy theorist thugs who harassed Keir Starmer and I repeated slurs we heard from Boris Johnson last week at the despatch box.

    Intimidation, harassment and lies have no place in our democracy. And they won’t ever stop me doing my job.

  • David Lammy and Rachel Reeves – 2022 Joint Letter on Ukraine

    David Lammy and Rachel Reeves – 2022 Joint Letter on Ukraine

    The joint letter send by David Lammy, the Shadow Foreign Secretary, and Rachel Reeves, the Shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer, to Liz Truss, the Foreign Secretary and Rishi Sunak, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, on 7 February 2022.

    Dear Foreign Secretary and Chancellor,

    Re: The Ukraine crisis and illicit finance

    Since the crisis on Ukraine’s borders began, we have been clear in our robust support for Ukraine’s sovereignty and our opposition to Russian aggression. We have supported the government’s diplomatic efforts and the practical defensive support provided to Ukraine.

    We believe however that there is much more that can be turn to address the UK’s openness to suspect Russian money.

    This week in the House of Commons, the government outlined its plans to bring forward new legislation to enable a robust and extensive package of economic sanctions against Russia in the event of any incursion or attack on Ukraine. We believe such sanctions must be broad, severe and comprehensive.

    However, these sanctions are all conditional on Russia’s actions. Their purpose is to form a serious deterrent, which, when matched by unified action across the West, will make President Putin think again.

    There is much more we must do irrespective of the decisions made by President Putin; measures it should not have taken an army threatening Ukraine to put in place and which we have repeatedly urged the government to take.

    For years, the Labour Party have raised the alarm about the role of dirty money in the UK and the lack of action from the Conservative government. Despite repeated warnings, the government has been asleep at the wheel and needlessly left our defences down at home.

    London is the destination of choice for the world’s kleptocrats. It is home to the services and enablers who help corrupt elites to hide their ill-gotten wealth. Britain has a completely deficient system of corporate registration that permits layers of secrecy to obscure the proceeds of corruption and crime. It is shameful that Britain is repeatedly described as the money-laundering capital of the world.

    Now this openness to illicit finance has begun to damage our diplomatic efforts, with the Biden administration being warned that the widespread presence of suspect Russian money in the UK could jeopardise Britain’s response to this crisis.

    We welcome the Prime Minister’s answer at Prime Minister’s Questions this week committing the government to bring forward an Economic Crime Bill in the third session of parliament. I hope the government recognises that had we already legislated for this then the UK would be in a stronger position to address dirty money from Russia.

    This is not simply a matter of targeting some individuals or entities through sanctions but about fixing a broken system – Britain’s openness to fraud and money laundering, inadequate regulation of political donations, lax mechanisms of corporate governance, and weakness to foreign interference.

    We believe we must take a broad range of robust steps to address these deficiencies and the Conservatives must do more including with the donations it receives. We would therefore be grateful if you address the following questions:

    When will the government undertake comprehensive reform of Companies House to prevent fraud at home and abuse from abroad?

    On what date will the government bring forward the Register of Overseas Entities Bill it has promised for years?

    Will the government bring forward a Foreign Agent Registration law?

    Where are the new counter-espionage laws, announced in the Queen’s Speech but still delayed?

    When will the government reform the Tier 1 so-called ‘Golden Visas’?

    Where is the replacement to the outdated Computer Misuse Act, as recommended by the Russia Report?

    Where is the additional resource and power for the Electoral Commission, which will strengthen our democracy’s defence from overseas governments and interests?

    Why does the government’s Election Bill make these problems worse by enabling limitless political donations from donors based overseas?

    Donors who have made money from Russia or have alleged links to the Putin regime have given £1.93m to either the Conservative Party or individual Conservative associations since Boris Johnson took power in July 2019. Will the Conservative Party agree to return it?

    Will the government reform the rules on political donations to defend our democracy from overseas interests using loopholes to influence British politics?

    These steps to strengthen our national security and democracy at home are not distinct from sanctions or diplomacy abroad – they must form part of a unified and coherent response.

    We can’t stand up to Russia’s aggression abroad while ignoring Russian-linked corruption at home.

    It is in our national and economic interests for the government to address the challenges of hostile influence and interference which the government’s inaction and behaviour have regrettably permitted.

  • David Lammy – 2022 Comments on New Beacon Bookshop

    David Lammy – 2022 Comments on New Beacon Bookshop

    The comments made by David Lammy, the Shadow Foreign Secretary, on 1 January 2022.

    This New Year let’s save New Beacon Bookshop. The UK’s first specialist black bookshop, it would be a tragedy if it had to close after 55 years. A loss not just for the black community but our countries collective history. Independent bookshops are vital.

  • David Lammy – 2021 Comments on Foreign Office Whistleblower

    David Lammy – 2021 Comments on Foreign Office Whistleblower

    The comments made by David Lammy, the Shadow Foreign Secretary, on 7 December 2021.

    This devastating testimony alleges that while Kabul fell and British troops risked their lives, the Foreign Secretary was asleep at the wheel and the department’s response was shambolic and incompetent.

    This whistleblower paints a picture of chaos and dysfunction, for which innocent Afghans have paid the ultimate price. Crucial emails left unread. The crisis centre chronically understaffed. Afghan allies abandoned. Only 5% of those needing help receiving it. And a foreign secretary – and still the Deputy Prime Minister – who was lounging on the beach and had lost all grip of his department.

    This evidence raises the most serious questions of competence during a moment of international crisis. The Foreign Secretary must urgently come to the House and address these claims.

  • David Lammy – 2021 Comments on Dominic Raab’s Conference Speech

    David Lammy – 2021 Comments on Dominic Raab’s Conference Speech

    The comments made by David Lammy, the Shadow Justice Secretary, on 5 October 2021.

    After eleven years of Tory Government, court backlogs have reached record levels, violence and self-harm in prisons have soared, rape convictions have plummeted, and many women have lost confidence in the criminal justice system.

    Yet instead of addressing any of these problems, the new Justice Secretary chose to focus on vague threats to take away ordinary people’s rights.

    The only thing Dominic Raab has demonstrated today is that the Conservatives have no plans whatsoever to fix the crisis they’ve created in the criminal justice system.