Lammy urges Reform's newest MP to ‘get some help' over ‘conspiracy theories'
Sarah Pochin had asked the Foreign Secretary whether the US felt unable to use the UK-US airbase on Diego Garcia, following the Government's deal with Mauritius over the Chagos Islands.
Responding during a statement on the Middle East, Mr Lammy said the MP for Runcorn and Helsby should 'get off social media'.
Foreign Secretary David Lammy (Parliament TV/PA)
The UK-operated base in the Chagos Islands was not used in the US strike on Iran's nuclear facilities, Foreign Office minister Stephen Doughty has said.
He added that the US did not ask to use it, as he answered questions from the Foreign Affairs Committee on Monday.
Speaking in the Commons, Ms Pochin said: 'Is he (Mr Lammy) able to explain to the House whether the United States felt unable to use the Diego Garcia base and have to refuel, in a highly dangerous operation three times because of that, because of your deal that you did with the with the Mauritians, that would then tell the Chinese, that would then tell the Iranians?'
Mr Lammy replied: 'The honourable lady has got (to) get off social media, has got to get some help… because she is swallowing conspiracy theories that should not be repeated in this House.'
The deal over the Chagos Islands follows a 2019 advisory opinion from the International Court of Justice which says the islands should be handed over to Mauritius.
As well as establishing a £40 million fund for Chagossians, the UK has agreed to pay Mauritius at least £120 million a year for 99 years in order to lease back the Diego Garcia base – a total cost of at least £13 billion in cash terms.
The honourable lady has got (to) get off social media, has got to get some help... because she is swallowing conspiracy theories that should not be repeated in this House David Lammy
During the statement on Monday, Mr Lammy was pressed by MPs on the UK's position following the US military action.
Conservative MP Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) said: 'Does His Majesty's Government support or oppose US military action against Iran at the weekend?'
Mr Lammy replied: 'His Majesty's Government will continue to work with our closest ally, as I was last week in Washington DC.'
Liberal Democrat MP Mike Martin (Tunbridge Wells) said: 'What is UK Government policy on whether regime change should be pursued in Iran?'
Mr Lammy replied: 'It is not our belief that it's for us to change the regime of any country, that it must be for the people themselves.'
SNP MP Brendan O'Hara (Argyll, Bute and South Lochaber) said: 'We've been here for an hour, and still the Foreign Secretary appears incapable of saying whether he supports or condemns America's actions, or whether he regards them as being legal or not.
'And nowhere in this statement does the role of international law even merit a mention. So will the Foreign Secretary take this opportunity now to tell us whether he believes that America's unilateral action was compliant with international law?'
Mr Lammy replied: 'I've got to tell (Mr O'Hara), I qualified and was called to the bar in 1995, I haven't practised for the last 25 years.
'It is not for me to comment on the United States' legal validity. I would refer him to article 51 and article two of the UN Charter, and he can seek his own advice.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Glasgow Times
37 minutes ago
- Glasgow Times
Labour MPs rebel against welfare cuts with bid to kill Bill
A reasoned amendment due to be published on Tuesday will seek to halt the Bill. Commons Speaker Sir Lindsay Hoyle would need to select the amendment when MPs debate the legislation at its second reading. But it could pose a major challenge to the Government's plans. Dozens of MPs, including 11 select committee chairs, are understood to have backed it. The chairwoman of the Work and Pensions Committee said the aim was to persuade the Government to 'think again', while another backer urged the Government to 'go back to the drawing board'. It comes after Work and Pensions Secretary Liz Kendall sought to talk up the changes and persuade backbench MPs at a meeting of the Parliamentary Labour Party (PLP). Under the proposals, ministers will limit eligibility for the personal independence payment (Pip), the main disability payment in England, and limit the sickness-related element of universal credit (UC). The amendment acknowledges the need to reform the social security system but calls to reject the Bill because of a lack of consultation with disabled people and their carers. It also makes the case that arrangements are not in place to help those affected by the changes, noting that most additional employment support funding will not be in place until the end of the decade. And it points to the fact that an analysis of the impact of the reforms on employment from the Office for Budget Responsibility will not be published until the autumn. Debbie Abrahams MP, chairwoman of the Work and Pensions Committee, said: 'We desperately want the Government to succeed in the shared goal of getting people who can work into work and supporting those who can't. 'We want the Government to listen and to think again on this Bill. 'We are being asked to vote for this Bill before disabled people have been consulted, before impact assessments have been conducted, and before we have given enough time to some of the Government's key policies – investing in the NHS, to the right to try, and to work coaching – (to) have been able to bed in.' Another MP backing the amendment said: 'The breadth of the support for this amendment, from across the PLP, shows just how concerned MPs are about the cuts to disability benefits. 'The Government needs to withdraw the Bill and go back to the drawing board.' The Government has faced a growing backlash to its planned reforms, with Labour MP Vicky Foxcroft resigning as a Government whip because of her concerns over the package. MPs continued to voice their concerns in the Commons on Monday. Next week's Universal Credit and PIP Bill will impose poverty on disabled people. It is unacceptable the government are not publishing key information on the scale of that impact. — Andy McDonald MP for Middlesbrough & Thornaby East (@AndyMcDonaldMP) June 23, 2025 Andy McDonald, who represents Middlesbrough and Thornaby East, said he and his colleagues were being asked to vote on imposing 'appalling poverty'. Ministers have previously said the reforms could save up to £5 billion a year. The Work and Pensions Secretary told the PLP that the plans are 'rooted in fairness'. Ms Kendall said: 'The path to a fairer society – one where everyone thrives, where people who can work get the support they need, and where we protect those who cannot – that is the path we seek to build with our reforms. 'Our plans are rooted in fairness – for those who need support and for taxpayers.' She argued they are about ensuring the survival of the welfare state so there is always a safety net for those in need of it. Ms Kendall added: 'But above all they are about our belief that everyone can fulfil their potential and live their hopes and dreams when, collectively, we provide them with real opportunities and support. 'This is the better future we seek to build for our constituents and our country.'
ITV News
44 minutes ago
- ITV News
UK set to commit to boost defence spending to 5% of GDP by 2035
The UK will increase spending on defence and security to 5% of GDP by 2035, the Prime Minister is set to announce at a meeting of Nato leaders. The target, expected to be formally agreed by the 32-nation military alliance at a summit in The Hague this week, includes spending 3.5% on 'core defence' and another 1.5% on 'resilience and security'. It represents a significant jump from the current 2% Nato target, and from the UK Government's aim of spending 2.5% of GDP on defence from 2027 and 3% at some point after the next election. But the figure is in line with the demands of US President Donald Trump, who has called for Nato allies to shoulder more of the burden of European defence. Ahead of his trip to the Netherlands, Starmer said the increased spending target was 'an opportunity to deepen our commitment to Nato and drive greater investment in the nation's wider security and resilience'. He said: 'We must navigate this era of radical uncertainty with agility, speed and a clear-eyed sense of the national interest to deliver security for working people and keep them safe.' The Government expects to spend 1.5% of GDP on resilience and security by 2027. The details of what counts towards that target are due to be set out during this week's summit, but it is likely to include spending on energy and border security as well as intelligence agencies. But increasing core defence spending to 3.5% will not happen until 2035, with at least two elections likely to take place before then. Nor would Downing Street say how the increase would be paid for, with a spokesman describing the figure as 'a projected target' that allies would review in 2029 when Nato carries out its next capability assessment. The Royal United Services Institute has estimated that increasing core defence spending to 3.5% by 2035 would cost £40 billion a year more than keeping the figure at 2.5%. Conservative shadow defence secretary James Cartlidge said the Tories welcomed the higher Nato target, but said the Government's commitment was 'both unfunded and a decade away, when the threat we face is real and imminent.' Sir Keir's announcement came as the Prime Minister prepared to fly to the Netherlands for the two-day Nato summit against the background of both the war in Ukraine and escalating hostilities in the Middle East. Nato secretary-general Mark Rutte described the move to spend more on defence as a 'quantum leap' that would make the organisation 'a stronger, a fairer and a more lethal alliance."
Times
an hour ago
- Times
Keir Starmer forced to boost defence spending in Nato-first policy
Britain spent 2.3 per cent of its national income on defence in 2024 compared with the United States which spent 3.19 per cent. Sir Keir Starmer has now been forced to commit to spend 5 per cent of national income on security by 2035, a figure which includes 3.5 per cent on hard defence, in line with Nato allies and to appease Donald Trump. Experts say this will eventually cost taxpayers an extra £40 billion a year. There are no clear plans on how to pay for it. Starmer delivers a speech during a visit to the BAE Systems' Govan facility in Glasgow earlier this month ANDY BUCHANAN/POOL/AFP VIA GETTY IMAGES Under Nato's rules for spending, the UK expects to reach at least 4.1 per cent of national income on security in 2027. 'Security' will include infrastructure projects and military mobility, such as adapting roads and bridges for tanks. 'Hard defence' is weapons and troops. Only a few weeks ago the government was tying itself in knots over defence spending, with the prime minister refusing to commit to spend just 3 per cent of defence by 2034, baffling senior military figures. Starmer said 3 per cent during the next parliament was an 'ambition' only, because he would not indulge in 'performative fantasy politics', despite knowing he would be heading to the Nato summit under pressure to commit to much more. John Healey, the defence secretary, rowed back on remarks made to The Times where he said spending 3 per cent in the next parliament, by 2034, was a certainty. Three days later he said 'we will never make commitments to increase funding unless we can show how we are paying for them'. The prime minister visits a Vanguard class submarine off the coast of Scotland CROWN COPYRIGHT However, after pressure from the US, Britain and Europe have been left with no choice but to dramatically increase their spending. The US expects Britain to take on a leading role in Europe and the strategic defence review emphasises a 'Nato-first' policy. It is unclear how exactly the government plans to spend billions of pounds a year extra on defence and security by 2035. Professor Malcolm Chalmers, deputy director general at the Royal United Services Institute, has said meeting 3.5 per cent by 2035 would cost £40 billion more annually than if it stayed at 2.5 per cent in the same year. So far the government has only set out how it plans to spend 2.6 per cent on defence by April 2027, mainly by taking money away from the aid budget.
