Iran

Julian Lewis Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd February 2026 Commons Chamber

[Mr Falconer]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising the concerns of her constituents in Huddersfield. She referred to her Kurdish community in Huddersfield, and I know that there is a great deal of concern among the Kurdish communities across the region. As we have discussed events in north-east Syria recently in this House, I hope Mr Speaker will forgive me if I pass just brief comment on that. I am glad that, since that discussion, there has been a ceasefire in relation to north-east Syria, which is a source of considerable reassurance to those living there. On my hon. Friend’s important question about the proscription of the IRGC, we are committed to the findings of the Hall review, which set out the need to have a state-analogous process for proscription, and we are committed to bringing forward legislation to achieve that.

[Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

Will the Minister please get on with doing that? The fact is that the independent reviewer of terrorism has signalled a way in which something analogous to proscription can be done to the IRGC, even though it is a state body. Does the Minister accept that there is an analogy between the IRGC and the Gestapo and Hitler’s SS, both of which were designated as criminal organisations by the Nuremberg tribunal? Would he be as slow to act if we were operating in that context? For goodness’ sake, get on with it and implement the findings and recommendations of Jonathan Hall.

[Mr Falconer]

I want the House to be in absolutely no doubt that the IRGC is already sanctioned in its entirety in the UK. The sanctions that we announced on Monday included one on the Interior Minister. There is no pulling of punches by the British Government in response to the sanctions. I say gently to the right hon. Member and to those on the Conservative Benches that we are moving with considerably more alacrity on these questions than they did during their period in government.

Ukraine: Non-recognition of Russian-occupied Territories

Julian Lewis Excerpts

Thursday 29th January 2026 Westminster Hall

[Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

Having listened to all the excellent preceding speeches, I have to say that occasions such as this make me proud to be a Member of the British Parliament. I congratulate everyone who has spoken with such a united voice.

If I may, I will just make some brief elaborations on the opening comments and superb contribution of the hon. Member for Leeds Central and Headingley (Alex Sobel). He referred in particular to the non-recognition of the Baltic states, and it is worth looking at that a little more closely. The Baltic states were occupied and incorporated into the Soviet Union for approximately half a century; never did this country recognise that. If those of us who saw the Soviet Union at the height of its power in the mid-1980s had been told that one day the Governments in exile of those three absorbed republics would be able to step forward and pick up the torch of democracy owing to the collapse of their overlords, we would have said, “Well, we would love to think that would happen, but do we honestly think it is going to happen in our lifetimes? Probably not.” But it did, and when it did, the implosion was dramatic, unexpected and complete.

[Dawn Butler in the Chair]

Yet there are some people who regard the break-up—the dissolution—of the Soviet empire as a geopolitical disaster. Hon. Members know to whom I am referring in particular: Vladimir Putin. Given that that is Putin’s attitude, one thing that we can certainly deduce from the present situation is that there is no such thing as a peace deal to be had with Vladimir Putin and his cohorts. The fact is that if there is a deal of any sort—if there is a ceasefire—it is for one reason and one reason only: that Putin feels at the time of such a deal or a ceasefire that he cannot successfully go further. If then there is a cessation of fighting for a while, we can be equally sure that the moment Putin thinks he can go further, he will start all over again. So there is absolutely nothing to be gained, in terms of good will, or a basis for future relationships or stability, by giving any concessions to Putin whatsoever in terms of land exchanges or recognition of occupation.

Let me turn to another parallel with the 1930s—the fact that Putin made one big error. He signalled by his early occupation of Crimea what his intentions were, but he was not then able to carry them out for quite a few years, in which time the defensive capability of the Ukrainians had massively increased with the surreptitious help, I suspect, of certain western powers, including ourselves. As a result, Ukraine was able to put up a much stronger defence than anybody who was not part of that secret rearmament and training programme would have anticipated.

[Sir John Whittingdale]

I am listening with great interest to my right hon. Friend’s speech. He will remember Operation Orbital, during which the UK provided training and supplies to the Ukrainian armed forces in anticipation of the attack that then followed.

[Sir Julian Lewis]

Yes, that is entirely the sort of contribution that I have in mind. As a result of that, when Putin was ready to take his next bite, the Ukrainians were able to prevent him, yet many people, including me, thought the most that we could probably do was to offer the Ukrainian Government a Government-in-exile headquarters in London when the whole country was overrun. The whole country was not overrun. Hopefully, the whole country never will be overrun, but those parts of it that have been overrun must never be recognised as belonging to the successors of the Soviet Union—namely the gang around Vladimir Putin, the killer in the Kremlin.

British Indian Ocean Territory

Julian Lewis Excerpts

Wednesday 28th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Seema Malhotra)]

It is a pleasure to respond to this debate.

Let me start by saying that the Government oppose the motion. The treaty guarantees full UK operational control of Diego Garcia for generations to come.

[Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

On that point—

[Seema Malhotra]

Let me make a few remarks before I give way.

The motion proposes a wildly exaggerated cost, in contrast to the actual costings published by this Government at the time of the treaty’s introduction, which has been verified by the independent Government Actuary’s Department. The motion invokes an exchange of notes, which the Government have publicly confirmed is being updated with our US partners. It also attempts to bind parliamentary procedure on that exchange despite that exchange not having been finalised. That is not patriotic. That is political point scoring at the expense of our national security. It is a sad indictment of what the Official Opposition have become.

--- Later in debate ---

[Seema Malhotra]

Let me make a little progress before giving way to the right hon. Gentleman.

In November 2022, the former Foreign Secretary said that

“taking into account relevant legal proceedings, it is our intention to secure an agreement on the basis of international law to resolve all outstanding issues”.—[Official Report, 3 November 2022; Vol. 721, c. 27WS.]

In February last year, a spokesperson for the Leader of the Opposition insisted that negotiations over the islands were needed due to the international legal position. [Interruption.] I am referring to the current Leader of the Opposition—some might not remember who she is, but she is still in post, I believe. She may have defected to Reform.

What I will say—this is a serious point—is that there has been ample time for debate on this topic. Indeed, the Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty), debated it for more than two hours last week and for 45 minutes on Monday in an urgent question. Baroness Chapman of Darlington has spent hours debating the topic in the other place, including during an urgent question on Monday. We have committed to this deal and to these hours of debate because it is important that we do so. Courts had already begun to make decisions that undermined our position in relation to the security of the base.

[Sir Julian Lewis]

I am a little worried that the Minister is confusing Ministers coming to the Dispatch Box and not answering questions with proper scrutiny of what is going on, so here is a very specific question for her. She has heard previously about the Pelindaba treaty. Mauritius is a signatory, and all signatories have to declare their territories to be nuclear-free zones, effectively. If in the future the Americans, with our agreement and approval, wish to have some nuclear weapons permanently or temporarily on the base at Diego Garcia, will they be able to do so if Mauritius has sovereignty over the islands?

[Seema Malhotra]

I thank the right hon. Member for his comments. The answer to that question has been set out by Lord Coaker, and I will be laying it out—[Interruption.] The answer is yes, and it has been set out by Lord Coaker in the other place. I will come on to that in my remarks.

There have been questions from the Opposition today about the legal matters behind this treaty. It is important to say that Mauritius’s legal claim of sovereignty over the island of Diego Garcia is supported by a number of international institutions, including the UN General Assembly. The International Court of Justice considered this issue in the advisory opinion delivered in February.

--- Later in debate ---

[Calum Miller]

Donald Trump’s remarks about NATO troops were untrue and deeply offensive, and I welcome the robust response from parties across this House. Yet there was no apology from the US President, which we deserve. Liberal Democrats have called on the Prime Minister to summon the US ambassador to offer an explanation for the remarks and an apology to the veterans affected and to the families of the 457 brave personnel who paid the ultimate sacrifice in fighting alongside US forces in Afghanistan.

[Sir Julian Lewis]

The hon. Gentleman is making a number of serious points. Does he see, as I do, a sort of parallel between President Trump’s egregious suggestion that NATO troops were, allegedly, not on the frontline and this issue of Diego Garcia? The fact is that President Trump makes certain comments and then, when confronted with the truth, has to try to elaborate on them, even if he will not go so far as to say the dreaded words “I’m sorry.” Is that not what is happening here? The Americans did not realise the extent to which giving up sovereignty over the base would compromise their military situation, and we have not heard anything to say that Mauritius could not stop any nuclear weapons ever in future being on Diego Garcia.

[Calum Miller]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his intervention, but I was in the Chamber on Monday when he remarked that it was a fine aspect of joint working between Reform and the Conservatives to bring in that view from Donald Trump. I do not think it is appropriate for the leader of Reform to be whispering in the ear of the US President to upset negotiations. The right hon. Member makes a brave point when he appears to suggest that the fact that the US President has moved in one direction recently means that it will be sustained in the future. That notwithstanding, it is the case that the US President has recently made those remarks about the Chagos islands, and we will have to take those into consideration during the progress of the Bill.

We need to reflect on the other outstanding problems with the Government’s proposed legislation. Since the start of debates over the treaty, Liberal Democrats have been the only party consistently championing the rights of Chagossians. That stands in contrast with the Government’s lack of substantive engagement with the Chagossian community. Chagossians have been denied a meaningful say in their future and the provisions of the treaty shamefully fail to affirm their rights. But that is not only a failing of the Government; indeed, despite the remarks of the shadow Foreign Secretary, the motion we are debating today in her name includes not a single reference to the Chagossian community. That is addressed in the amendment in my name on behalf of my party.

--- Later in debate ---

[Tim Roca]

I disagree with the hon. Member, because the two situations do have parallels. In the South China sea, people are challenging Chinese sovereignty, and it has been proved not to have standing in international courts. At the moment, ambiguity is starting to arrive in our position over the Chagos islands. This treaty would remove it and remove cause for the Chinese navy to take advantage.

Against this backdrop, I want to restate the tests that I set out in an earlier debate on this deal. Does the agreement protect our national security? Does it command the support of our allies and professional security community? Are the costs proportionate to the benefits? On each of these tests, the answer remains yes. Diego Garcia is a keystone of our joint security architecture in the Indo-Pacific. It is where UK and US forces operate together against terrorist threats. It is a logistics, communications and intelligence hub, and it is central to safeguarding the global trade routes on which our economy depends. Without a secure base, all of that is placed at risk.

Our Five Eyes allies in Canada, Australia and New Zealand support this deal, and our strategic partner India supports this deal. I want to address briefly the noise around President Trump’s social media posts, which the Minister dealt with very well earlier. Social media is not statecraft. What matters is the settled position of the United States, its military leadership and its security agencies. On that, there has been clarity for some time. The Pentagon, the State Department and successive US Defence Secretaries—Republican and Democrat—have supported this agreement.

As I said at the beginning, interconnectedness is incredibly important and we cannot ignore the fact that international opinion matters. Yes, the world has changed. Power today is exercised through force—hard power has become incredibly important—but it is also still exercised through legitimacy, alliances and rules. If we expect others to respect international rules where it suits us, whether in Ukraine or the South China sea, we cannot be seen to apply them selectively elsewhere, except in the supreme national interest.

[Sir Julian Lewis]

I am a great admirer of the hon. Gentleman; he is courteous and thoughtful, and I always listen to what he says with great focus and attention. He is criticising the dangers of ambiguity, and I agree with that point. Does he accept, however, that we have not cleared up the ambiguity about whether nuclear weapons could ever be on Diego Garcia if the Americans and the British wanted them to be? It is no good saying, as the Minister did, “We never talk about deployments of nuclear weapons.” We are not asking about deployments of nuclear weapons. We are asking about the legal position if the case was that the Americans or the British wanted to have nuclear weapons, temporarily or permanently, on Diego Garcia. If we transfer sovereignty to a country that is signed up to be part of a nuclear-free zone, that is bound to call into doubt the ability to have nuclear weapons there in the future. Can he clear up that point?

[Tim Roca]

I cannot clear up that point for the right hon. Member, but I have great confidence that ministerial colleagues would be able to. We have been told at all points that this treaty would ensure the continued effectiveness of the base in the way that it is run now. There was an Ohio class submarine there in 2022, and I hope those arrangements continue under this treaty. From what I have heard from Ministers, there is no reason that they would not.

Let us turn to the costs of the deal. It will cost a fraction of the defence budget for an irreplaceable asset—

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Kieran Mullan (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)]

I welcome the opportunity to make clear my opposition to any proposal to give away this strategically important sovereign British territory. This is not merely a territorial concession; it is an act of strategic self-sabotage, a dereliction of duty and an unforgivable betrayal of our national security. At a time of growing global instability, when our adversaries are watching for any sign of weakness, Labour has chosen to send precisely the wrong signal: that Britain can be pressured into abandoning its own territory.

This decision is indefensible on every level. The Chagos islands, and specifically Diego Garcia, have been a vital strategic asset for the UK and our allies for decades. The military base on Diego Garcia has played a crucial role in global security operations, supporting counter-terrorism efforts, maritime security and regional stability. It has been instrumental in projecting western power in the Indo-Pacific, a region increasingly shaped by geopolitical competition, particularly with China. By ceding sovereignty over these islands, Labour has put at risk Britain’s strategic interests and undermined our ability to operate in the region. What makes this decision even more staggering is that we are not just surrendering our sovereignty: we are paying Mauritius billions of pounds for the privilege.

My central concern is the serious strategic challenge we face in respect of China. China has a population of 1.4 billion people and by 2030 its GDP is projected to be $26 trillion, second only to the US, and there are projections that it will potentially outstrip the US by 2050. China’s increase in military spending this year alone is expected to be 7.2%, which is the third consecutive year in which its increase in military spending has been over 7%. China has become the world’s largest shipbuilding nation, and its navy is expected to comprise 430 military grade ships by 2030, compared with the US navy’s estimated decline to 294 ships. China is a growing military power and there are no indications that it is anywhere near a supposed peak.

Domestically and internationally, China conducts itself as an autocratic state. It has the most sophisticated domestic surveillance system in the world, Skynet, which as of 2023 has 700 million cameras—that is one lens for every two Chinese citizens. We must not be so naive as to assume that if we end up in even greater strategic competition with China it will care at all about what agreement we have reached with Mauritius. We saw with Hong Kong how easily agreements made with third countries can be ignored, as China did there.

If Mauritius seeks to align itself strategically with China, do we think China will hesitate and ask it not to break the treaty because of international law? China will not respect any Bill or pay any attention to diplomatic consequences for Mauritius if it thinks it is in its interest to get Mauritius to break that agreement. That is the difference between any form of agreement and sovereignty, because once sovereignty has been given away, it can never be bought back.

[Sir Julian Lewis]

This is why some people are concerned that if Mauritius allowed the Americans to have nuclear weapons on the base, although I do not think it would allow that, that would give China an excuse to break the same treaty to which Mauritius is already committed about a non-nuclear Africa, and China would not even get the odium that it otherwise would receive if it started deploying nuclear weapons all over the African continent.

[Dr Mullan]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. It is extraordinary that Labour Members are prepared to defend the deal, while admitting that they do not even know if our accusations are correct. They could say that they do not agree with what we are proposing, but to admit that they do not know whether nuclear weapons will be allowed on the island and that they are happy to support the deal anyway is disgraceful.

We must address the wider consequences of this decision. If Labour is willing to abandon the Chagos islands so easily, what message does that send to our other overseas territories? The International Court of Justice may have issued an advisory opinion in 2019—[Interruption.] What I say is true; the world is watching. We have had pressure put on us in relation to a sovereign territory and we have collapsed, but Labour Members want us to think that the rest of the world will not interpret our standing from that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Julian Lewis]

Ministers keep saying “How dare you compare this with the Falkland Islands?”, but Labour’s manifesto at the last election gave a commitment to defend the sovereignty of the British overseas territories—not some of them, all of them. If they cannot be trusted on this one, they cannot be trusted on any of them.

[Dr Mullan]

My right hon. Friend highlights the lessons that the rest of the world will be drawing from this decision.

A submissive approach to third party calls on these issues displays an incredible naiveté about the world we live in and the direction we are travelling. Our previous positive disposition towards the role that these institutions could play was in a different era, when we expected a converging uniformity of basic values and democracy. That convergence is not happening; instead, our enemies are using our desire to stick to it as a weakness to exploit. They do not even recognise basic legal norms and institutions in their own countries; their own citizens do not benefit from legal protections and rights, and they do not believe in the rule of law full stop.

Do the Government really think that our enemies will put international legal obligations ahead of pursuing their own strategic interests? Of course not, yet we are expected to undertake a strategic surrender in the name of the rule of law in a way that advantages them, and on what basis—that they might look at what we have done and change their ways in the future, as they failed to do in Hong Kong? That is incredible naiveté.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Alec Shelbrooke (Wetherby and Easingwold) (Con)]

It is worth reflecting on the entire geopolitical situation that the world faces. Many treaties simply are not worth the paper that they are written on; if it suits our adversaries to ignore them, they will. Is not the old maxim, “To stop a war, be ready to fight a war”, more true today than it has ever been? If we decide that we are going to rely on pieces of paper, rather than the ability to say, “We will defend, at war if need be”, we weaken our position.

Let us consider the whole Indo-Pacific region. The NATO Parliamentary Assembly made a visit to Pacific command back in August. The admiral of the base made it crystal clear that in a very short space of time, the Americans would be outnumbered in the Pacific arena. Limiting what weapons can be used, when those weapons currently can be used, simply will not work. There has not been a satisfactory answer on whether nuclear weapons can be stored on Diego Garcia when it is under the authority of the Mauritians.

Despite the conversations about what Pete Hegseth said and what other treaties may have been negotiated along the way, we have the commander in chief, who outranks the US Secretary of State for Defence, saying, “I do not want to do this deal.” We have the deputy Prime Minister of Mauritius saying, “You will not be able to hold nuclear weapons there.” What makes Ministers so convinced that those leaders are wrong, and that they are right? That is the greatest and deepest concern.

We live in a world that is rapidly changing, not just in its disregard for the rules-based order, but in its energy demands. Those energy demands are shifting the geopolitical situation. Given where a lot of the materials that we need for renewables are, the focus is shifting more towards that hemisphere and away from the Gulf. The geopolitical positioning of the Chagos islands is therefore becoming more and more important.

It is absolutely right to say that our Government started negotiations, which went on and on, but that does not mean that there is a victory in ending them overnight by just giving way on the red lines that we would not cross. That is a very important point, because we should recognise the situation that we face, rather than crowing about some diplomatic “victory”.

Time and again, we see the Government kowtowing to Beijing, rather than standing up to it. We see that today. Where is the strategic plan? My right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis) was exceptionally critical of the golden era of relations with China under David Cameron. The criticisms coming forward are not new; my right hon. Friend warned at the time of the security risks that China posed. The Prime Minister has signed off on the super-embassy, despite all the things we know about, and the things that we have seen in its blueprints, and for what reason? This seems to be almost—

[Sir Julian Lewis]

Pathological.

[Sir Alec Shelbrooke]

Yes, pathological. There is this belief that the Chinese will always act in good faith, that we can trust them, and that they would not dare invade, because we signed a piece of paper. The world is changing, and there is no shame in pausing negotiations when changes come to light. The Minister should reflect on what is said today about how the situation has changed since his Government came to power, getting on for two years ago. The situation has changed incredibly.

[Tom Hayes]

rose—

[Sir Julian Lewis]

rose—

[Sir Alec Shelbrooke]

I give way to my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East.

[Sir Julian Lewis]

I have a helpful suggestion. I know that I cannot commit my party as a whole, but let me speak personally. If the Government change their position, I—and, I am sure, my right hon. Friend—will give a personal pledge never to accuse them of having done a U-turn on this matter. We will praise them to the skies, and we will not seek to take party political advantage of their belated acceptance of reality.

[Sir Alec Shelbrooke]

That is a really important point. When the Government act in the national interest, changes in position should be welcomed.

We do not have the defence capability that we need, and it is worrying in the extreme to hear that the money for the Diego Garcia deal will come out of the defence budget. We hear people saying, “The defence budget went down under you; it was hollowed out,” and so on. It did go down, but the bit that is often missed is that that started during the cold war, and it continued through 13 years of Labour Government and across Europe. The Americans halved their defence budget over that time. However, the world is a different place now; Ukraine was invaded, and at that point, the world changed direction.

Let us consider for a moment two countries that have made incredibly significant U-turns, if you will: Germany, which has a new defence posture and will spend hundreds of billions on defence, and Japan. Both countries have very much drawn a line under the events of the second world war, and have recognised that the world has changed into a much more dangerous place and needs a much bigger posture.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Evans]

Fundamentally, the US should express its concerns publicly, and it has now done so. We have asked Ministers, both in this debate and on Monday, whether the UK Government can make a unilateral decision without amending the notes. The Government have said that they have to amend the notes, but they have not set out what happens if the US does not agree. That is the key part of this, but the Government keep reading out the same answer that I got on Monday when I asked that question, the same answer that I got when I intervened on the Minister, and the same answer that my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Lincoln Jopp) got. They say that they have set out the process, which is primary legislation, secondary legislation, and then amendments to the notes. The question is: what happens if the Americans do not agree to that amendment of the 1966 notes? I will take an intervention if the Minister can tell us, because the fundamental point about US involvement is this: if they say no, but we say yes, where do the islands go? What happens to the agreement? What happens if they say yes and we say no? Those fundamental questions are why we keep coming back to this issue. If there was clarity and simple answers to simple questions, the Opposition would understand that and be able to make a balanced judgement. Instead, we have gaps in our understanding from the Government.

[Sir Julian Lewis]

My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech, but I think he knows the answers to those simple questions. The answer to the question whether Mauritius could stop us having nuclear weapons stored on Diego Garcia is clearly that it would be able to do so. It is clear that the answer to what happens if the Americans say no to changing the 1966 agreement is that this deal to get rid of our sovereignty over the Chagos islands would be dead in the water. The reason that Ministers will not say those things, even though they know them to be true, is that they are afraid of a headline saying, “Minister admits that Chagos surrender can’t go ahead without American agreement”.

[Dr Evans]

My right hon. Friend is entirely right in pinpointing some of the issues, and I will reverse my speech and deal with some of those first. On the 1996 Pelindaba treaty, formally ratified in 2009, although the whole treaty is about where countries can research and what they can do with nuclear weapons, the key part, article 4, is about the prevention of parking of nuclear explosives. Paragraph 1 states:

“Each Party undertakes to prohibit…the stationing of any nuclear explosive device”

on its territory. By definition, if the base goes across to Mauritius, it will be under the treaty, because Mauritius is a signatory. There is a slight misconstruing, because there is a specific carve-out. Paragraph 2 states:

“Without prejudice to the purposes and objectives of the treaty, each party in the exercise of its sovereign rights remains free to decide for itself whether to allow visits by foreign ships and aircraft to its ports and airfields”,

and it goes on.

What the treaty implies, and what it states specifically, is that Mauritius would have to be consulted and provide explicit permission for nuclear craft, whether submarine, boat or aircraft, to be there. Only yesterday we heard that that permission would not be granted. This question on the security of the nuclear aspect is unanswered, and I look forward to the Government trying to rectify that position, because they have not explained the interaction with the treaty. This is not operational; it is purely about legal text.

[Dr Evans]

Absolutely. On a technicality, the Minister is right to say that the treaty in front of us has no problems, but at the end of the day it is about the interaction with other treaties once we have signed it and sovereignty has been given away. My hon. Friend is right that things would not be covered once Diego Garcia no longer belonged to us, and the Government are struggling to explain that difficulty.

[Sir Julian Lewis]

I must tweak what my hon. Friend just said. Although there is discretion for the Mauritian Government to give permission for a nuclear-armed vessel to visit temporarily, for example, there is no discretion for nuclear weapons to be stored permanently on Diego Garcia.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and I fundamentally agree with him. In a way, I am sorry that the hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty) is not here—that is not to say that I have a detrimental view of the Minister now on the Front Bench, the hon. Member for Plymouth Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard)—and I worry about why he is not here. I hope he is not suffering from “long Chagos.” Maybe we should send him a “get well” card very soon. We miss him, because we are definitely seeing studied ambivalence at the Dispatch Box as a master strategic plan.

I will repeat what has been said by a number of colleagues: we know from yesterday, if we needed to know it at all, that the Deputy Prime Minister of Mauritius has made it categorically clear that there will be no allowance for nuclear weapons, either parked or landed, on the Chagos islands while the treaty exists. The hon. Member for Macclesfield rightly spoke about studied ambivalence, but there was no ambivalence in the statement from the Deputy Prime Minister of Mauritius. He is completely clear, yet we are ambivalent. For us, ambivalence is a mistake, because it allows the statements of fact to be presented by those who will take control of Chagos. That is not just a mistake, but a disastrous mistake.

[Sir Julian Lewis]

I think there is a further twist, because the Pelindaba treaty not only prohibits the storing of nuclear weapons on the territory of Mauritius, which the Chagos islands would become, but requires an inspection regime. I understand that the country that would carry out the inspection is South Africa, which is somewhat closer to China and Russia—particularly where naval co-operation is concerned—than it is to America or the United Kingdom.

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right, as he normally is. The reality is that the treaty to which he refers is very clear that its signatories cannot modify it; they must categorically agree not to have nuclear weapons on their territory. We are in the business of giving that territorial right to Mauritius, so there is no question but that the treaty will apply to Chagos.

That brings me to the other thing that the Government simply do not want to face up to: the 1966 treaty between the USA and the UK is absolutely clear. The Government obfuscate by calling it an “exchange of letters”, but it is actually a treaty. When we talk about an exchange of letters, it sounds like a “get well” card or something that one puts in the post. The Government say that this is not a big problem and that we can just exchange a few letters to each other:

“How are you getting on?”

“Fine. What about you?”

“We’re just going to give the islands away. Are you okay with that?”

“We’re okay with that—no problems. Can you give us a bit more detail?”

“We will when it is all passed. Don’t worry about it. We’ll be with you on this.”

No, it is a treaty. It has the substance of being a treaty, and that substance states categorically:

“The Territory shall remain under United Kingdom sovereignty.”

We cannot arbitrarily change that; we have to have full agreement from the USA. I do not believe that the United States really understood that it would not have sovereign rights over the base. I do not think the Government ever bothered to explain that, because I seem to recall that when this whole debate began, it was never mentioned. The Government did not come forward and say, “Yes, we’re going to get this Bill through. It’s not in the Bill, but we’ll exchange letters with you afterwards, because although it’s relevant and it’s completely sovereign, we don’t want to talk about it.”

The Government have to explain why they have never made any significant mention of that at all, because it now has a massive bearing on what happens to this really poor treaty, which is badly drafted, hurriedly written and only a few pages long. I sat through the debates on the Maastricht treaty—rebelling, of course—and the reality was that it was huge. Every aspect of our arrangements was in there and was debatable and amendable. It has been horrific to see how quickly the Government want to get the Bill through. I honestly think that it is madness.

I come to the cost. The other bit that is completely wrong is the Government’s desire to show how little they have had to pay under the treaty to get what they consider to be a reasonable lease. Is it not ironic that the Government are now moving against leaseholders here in the UK? They do not like leases. Apparently, people do have enough power over their leases. I simply say that the Government should learn from their own views about what is happening domestically. The lease is a terrible thing at times, because it gives people so little control. This is going to be a lease.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Rosindell]

I will not give way at this stage.

As I think all Members on both sides of the House will know, few issues have consumed so much of the 25 years of my parliamentary life as the British Indian Ocean Territory, the Chagos islands and, more importantly, the Chagossian people. For more than two decades, I have fought for the Chagossian right of self-determination, as with all overseas territories and former colonies. I chaired the Chagos Islands (British Indian Ocean Territory) all-party parliamentary group. In fact, I was previously the deputy chairman to the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn), so trying to get cross-party consensus on where we were heading was a bit of a juggling act.

The one thing that united that all-party group was the belief that the Chagossians should have the right of resettlement. I argued strongly for self-determination and that ultimately, whatever the options are and whatever happens, the Chagossians should have the final say. The right hon. Member had a different view, but members of that group—representing seven political parties—came to the view that the first thing needed was resettlement. However, the Conservative Government, over 14 years, absolutely refused even to consider any option for the resettlement of those islands.

I also dealt with this issue as a member of the Foreign Affairs Committee over 15 years. Unlike the many who now speak with great certainty but remained silent during that period, I did not remain silent. I have also been to the British Indian Ocean Territory. I have walked around those islands, and seen the abandoned churches and schools. I have walked around the ancestral graves of the Chagossian people and the derelict homes. I have seen the visible traces of a community expelled from its homeland and denied the right to return. I have raised this with every Foreign Office Minister in every Government over and over again, and I have been ignored. A small number of us were ignored; I pay tribute to Daniel Kawczynski, the former Member for Shrewsbury, and Henry Smith, the former Member for Crawley, for raising this matter. We all raised it, but, sadly, over 14 years the last Government just dismissed it and refused even to consider it.

I went to Peros Banhos, the outer islands, which are 160 miles away from Diego Garcia. There is no security threat there. It took me four different boats to get to the outer islands. People could live there with no issues whatsoever, because they would be a long way from Diego Garcia. Despite the line from the Foreign Office, when I went to the State Department and raised this matter directly with the Americans, they said, “We have no objections to the Chagossians living in the outer islands.” Our Foreign Office has been puppeteering this policy for years, and our Ministers just went along with it. They did nothing and they ignored the facts.

I went to Mauritius in 2002, accompanied by the then leader of the Conservative party, my right hon. Friend Michael Howard—Lord Howard of Lympne. It was not part of the official programme, but I asked, “Please can we go and visit the Chagossians in Port Louis?” After a bit of a flurry from officials, in the end we insisted, and we went to meet the leaders of the Chagossian community. That was in 2002, which was pretty much my first year as a Member of Parliament.

So when I speak about the Chagos islands, I do so from long experience, having visited Diego Garcia and the outer islands, and I conclude that the current position represents—sadly, by all parties—a shameful betrayal of the loyal British Chagossian people. The Government’s Bill is nothing short of a surrender. It hands away British sovereignty over a territory that we have administered for more than two centuries. It binds generations of British taxpayers to a grotesque financial settlement, with tens of billions of pounds paid to a foreign Government simply so we may lease back the military base that we already own. It is vital to our security and that of one of our closest allies, yet we are prepared to risk that vital military and security base for the next century because of this shabby deal.

Ministers justify this capitulation by sheltering behind so-called international law. They insist that a non-binding advisory opinion of a Court, whose jurisdiction is explicitly excluded from intra-Commonwealth disputes, is somehow beyond negotiation, yet at the same time they are content to ignore the 1966 agreement between the United States and the United Kingdom—an actual binding international treaty—which states plainly in its very first clause:

“The Territory shall remain under United Kingdom sovereignty.”

That consideration tells us everything we need to know: this was never really about international law. An act of “total weakness” is how this has been described by the President of the United States of America, and does that not just say everything about this Government’s approach? All this is being done without the consent of or a genuine consultation with—and even without the courtesy, which every other territory has been afforded, of a democratic vote for—the Chagossian people themselves.

As disgraceful as the Bill is, it did not emerge from a vacuum. For over two decades and, as I have mentioned, for 14 years from the Government Back Benches, I urged Foreign Secretary after Foreign Secretary and Minister after Minister—speaking to them in the Lobbies, going to the Foreign Office and talking to officials; and discussing it over and over again by calling them into all-party group meetings and raising it at the Foreign Affairs Committee—to consider the Chagossians’ right of resettlement and self-determination, but I was ignored all the way through.

[Sir Julian Lewis]

I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend—as I will always regard him, having known him for the past 40 years and knowing that his patriotism is beyond question—for giving way. Does he agree with me that there is a bit of a pattern here? The Government clearly want to do this surrender deal or giveaway, yet try to shelter behind inconclusive legalistic analysis. Is that not exactly the same as the betrayal of our Northern Ireland veterans, as the Government, when pressed, admit that they wanted to remove the immunity for our veterans anyway, but still seek to shelter behind questionable legal considerations that have not been fully tested? Why, when the Government want to do these terrible things, will they not at least have the guts to stand up and admit that that is what they want to do, and that they are not being forced to do it by lawyers whose credentials and jurisdiction are in question, to put it at its mildest?

[Andrew Rosindell]

I agree with every word my very dear and long-standing friend has said. I sit on a different Bench now, but as I look around the Chamber, I see colleagues on the Conservative Benches who I still agree with on most things, but I see some people on the Labour Benches—and certainly some of those in the Government—who seem to hate everything about this country and want to undermine this country, including when it comes to Northern Ireland veterans, and this particular issue, of the surrender of one of His Majesty’s territories against the wishes of the people, is exactly what I am talking about.

--- Later in debate ---

[Luke Pollard]

I am very pro-Lukes generally speaking, but the hon. Member had 20 minutes in which to speak, and a few more interventions will not correct the quality of his speech.

[Sir Julian Lewis]

Very specifically, the Minister has read out something about what can be stored on the island. Can that include, and does it include, nuclear weapons? And on the earlier point about a deal, may I remind him of a saying from an earlier context—a different context—which is that no deal is better than a bad deal?

[Luke Pollard]

To help the Front-Bench team get to their shadow Cabinet meeting, I will not read out the same points again. [Interruption.] The shadow Minister invites me to do that, so I will. We are talking about the unrestricted ability to

“control the storage of all goods, including but not limited to fuels, weapons and other hazardous materials”;

I am very clear on this, but there are a few other questions that I want to get to.

The hon. Member for Spelthorne (Lincoln Jopp) spoke about value in his good, characteristic style. I liked his approach. When he spoke about comparison of value, it is worth noting that securing the continued operation of the base is roughly about £100 million a year. That compares favourably with the base that the French rent in Djibouti, which is next to a Chinese naval base. Our base secures a 24-hour nautical exclusion zone around it. Full control of the electromagnetic spectrum is something the shadow Defence Secretary does not seem to understand, but it is actually quite important.

Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill

Julian Lewis Excerpts

Monday 26th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Doughty]

The hon. Gentleman and his colleagues in the other place have given serious and considered reflections on this Bill a number of times. We have discussed them privately and responded to them in the other place, and I will certainly listen very closely to what he has said on a number of issues. Those include continuing to update both Houses on the cost issues and other matters, although I am sure he agrees that some of the wild figures we have heard quoted are simply not accurate or based in any kind of fact.

The hon. Gentleman raises the issue of the Chagossians. He knows that I and others have engaged with Chagossian communities on a number of occasions, and a wide range of views have of course been expressed by Chagossian communities. He knows that a referendum would not have resolved this long-standing issue between the UK and Mauritius, which required state-to-state negotiations. Indeed, the courts here, noting the conclusion of the International Court of Justice in the 2019 advisory opinion, have proceeded on the basis that the relevant right to self-determination in the context of BIOT was that of Mauritians rather than of Chagossians, and that remains the fact.

I appreciate what the hon. Gentleman says about Chagossian communities. He knows my commitment to them, to listening to the range of views and to trying to do the right thing, including acknowledging the deep wrongs of the past. We will continue to engage with him and his colleagues, and I would be very happy to meet him to discuss the amendments in the other place.

[Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

The Minister is keeping up a brave face in public, but when he goes back to his colleagues he will have to tell them that the only contribution from his own Back Benches was to disagree with the Government’s position, and to do so bravely and articulately.

Does the Minister accept that the reason that this Bill may not go through is the work of the Conservative Opposition in both Houses of Parliament and the words of the leader of the Reform party in Mr Trump’s ear? Does that not show what can be achieved when two parties make common cause in a very worthwhile aim to achieve a vital objective?

[Stephen Doughty]

That comment speaks for itself, but I must say that I am absolutely astonished. Perhaps the right hon. Member is next on the defection list.

Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill

Julian Lewis Excerpts

Consideration of Lords amendments
Tuesday 20th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Doughty]

Let me make some progress on the issue of termination.

As I have said, limiting the circumstances in which the treaty can be terminated protects the UK’s interests and those of the US. The Government have secured that procedure.

Secondly, I reassure the House that, given the importance of the base, we are taking necessary steps to protect it from environmental damage. Working with the United States, again in partnership, we already have extensive measures in place, such as the coastal erosion programme, and scientific studies show that natural land loss over the past 50 years has been less than 1%. That said, we recognise the concerns of Lord Craig and Lord Houghton, and I would like to reassure them and Members of this House that the international law of treaties allows for the termination of a treaty when it becomes impossible for a treaty to be performed as a result of

“the permanent disappearance or destruction of an object indispensable for the execution of the treaty”.

Baroness Chapman set out the legal position clearly in the other place.

For further reassurance, since that debate we have consulted Mauritius to verify that it shares our assessment. I am happy to update the House that this has been confirmed in writing to the Government. Mauritius is clear on the point, both as a matter of international law and in its domestic law. We welcome that confirmation by Mauritius and trust that it will assure Members in this House and in the other place who share this concern that such an amendment is unnecessary.

[Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

rose—

[Stephen Doughty]

I give way to the former Chair of the Intelligence and Security Committee.

[Sir Julian Lewis]

The Minister seems to be putting an awful lot of faith in the good intent and reliability of the Mauritian Government. They are a close ally of China, which, he might remember, gave us cast-iron guarantees about the future of the Hongkongers once the lease on Hong Kong was given up. I gently remind him that the 2024 Labour manifesto, entitled “Change”, stated:

“Defending our security also means protecting the British Overseas Territories and Crown Dependencies, including the Falklands and Gibraltar. Labour will always defend their sovereignty and right to self-determination.”

Can he look the Chagossians in the Gallery in the eye and tell them that that is what the Government are now doing?

[Stephen Doughty]

I have great respect for the right hon. Gentleman and his role, and we have had many good conversations, but it is extremely unhelpful to, and unwanted by, residents in Gibraltar and the Falkland Islands that this false comparison keeps being made—

[Sir Julian Lewis]

It is in your manifesto.

[Stephen Doughty]

Absolutely, and we stand by that commitment to defend the Falklands and Gibraltar. That is exactly what we have been doing and will continue to do. I gently say that I fully recognise and respect the fact that there are many Chagossian groups who disagree with this deal as well as many who agree with it. Unfortunately, some of the comments in this place have represented only one side of that argument. It is our duty as a Government to listen to all those groups and to engage appropriately with them.

Lords Amendments 5 and 6 both relate to the costs of the treaty—

--- Later in debate ---

[Priti Patel]

My hon. Friend is right, and what he says speaks to it being complete nonsense for the Government to have proceeded with the Bill. It is an act of gross self-harm and, to quote the President of the United Sates, an “act of great stupidity” that will have significant consequences for this Government.

[Sir Julian Lewis]

Has my right hon. Friend noticed that the Minister, who is, shall we say, a flexible friend in the cause of the Government’s policies, has been relying on the fact that, in the past, other Members of Donald Trump’s Government in America have been saying supportive things about the Bill? Would she like to cast a wager with the Minister, as I would, that 24 hours after Donald Trump changed his tune, the Government will change their tune in exactly the same direction?

[Priti Patel]

If the Government wish to U-turn and scrap the Bill, we would welcome that and support it; there is no question about that.

I turn to amendment 1. It is not just when it comes to money, which is addressed in amendment 5, that the Government’s claims lack any credibility; amendment 1, which deals with the surrender of British sovereignty, leaves us weaker and, as we have heard from my right hon. and hon. Friends, will compromise the long-term operations of the base.

We are required to give notice to the Government of Mauritius about a range of activities taking place on the base. As the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) pointed out, Mauritius is a signatory to the Pelindaba treaty, and if that applies to Diego Garcia, it would prohibit the stationing and storage of nuclear weapons there. This is very serious. While the Prime Minister has claimed that China, Russia and Iran oppose the surrender, we know that they back it; they publicly endorse it, and they will seek to gain from this lack of sovereignty.

These points are all relevant to amendment 1, as it requires the Government to renegotiate article 11 of the treaty, so that payments cease should the use of the base for military purposes became impossible. Obviously, we hope that that scenario does not materialise, as we believe that Diego Garcia is a vital cornerstone of our national security and defence, and should remain so. However, as the treaty stands, if we stop using the base, the UK is still bound to make pretty significant payments over the 99-year lease period; it is a huge cost. Amendment 1 is therefore a vital point of contingency.

We would like the whole agreement binned, but we believe that it is reasonable and practical for the Government to accept this change. When he sums up, will the Minister explain why he is not prepared to consider the amendment, and to renegotiate parts of the treaty?

Oral Answers to Questions

Julian Lewis Excerpts

Tuesday 20th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Hon. Members]

Hear, hear!

[Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

I am sure the entire House endorses what the Foreign Secretary has just said.

In a week when the Government are sadly letting down Hongkongers in London, Chagossians in exile and Northern Ireland veterans in retirement, can we absolutely rely upon continued support for Ukraine’s gallant resistance to atrocious Russian imperialism?

[Yvette Cooper]

The right hon. Member should know better than to ask a question like that. As he knows, the UK has been continually strong in our support for Ukraine, for the people of Ukraine and for Ukraine’s continued military resistance. For too long, Russia has underestimated not only the people of Ukraine but Ukraine’s friends. That is why the UK, through the coalition of the willing, has been leading support for Ukraine.

Iran: Protests

Julian Lewis Excerpts

Monday 19th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Mr Falconer]

I have said repeatedly and in no uncertain terms to our Iranian counterparts, as has the Foreign Secretary, that any threats in the UK to British people of any faith or denomination in any building and, indeed, any other diplomatic premises in the UK will be treated with the utmost seriousness. I have reiterated that strength of feeling to a range of representatives from the Jewish community in the UK, and I am happy to reiterate it again from the Dispatch Box.

[Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

Last Tuesday afternoon, President Trump took a short break from attacking America’s NATO allies to write on Truth Social the following:

“Iranian Patriots, KEEP PROTESTING—TAKE OVER YOUR INSTITUTIONS!!!”

He added:

“HELP IS ON ITS WAY.”

Have the Government the faintest idea of what he was talking about?

[Mr Falconer]

US posture and policy towards Iran is, I am afraid, a matter for the US Government.

Proposed Chinese Embassy

Julian Lewis Excerpts

Monday 19th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Seema Malhotra]

My hon. Friend is right that we must not tolerate any attempts by foreign Governments to coerce, intimidate or harass. He has highlighted some examples that have caused great concern and that we take extremely seriously. We continue to assess potential threats in the United Kingdom, and the protection of individual rights and freedoms is a matter of great concern for the Government. Indeed, freedom of speech and other fundamental rights of all people in the UK are protected under domestic law. The police and security services monitor these issues closely.

The UK has a broad suite of powers available to counter foreign interference, including acts that amount to transnational repression. We continue to implement measures in the National Security Act 2023, which strengthens our legal powers and makes the UK a harder target for states that seek to conduct hostile acts. The Security Minister announced last year that counter-terrorism policing is offering training and guidance on state-threats activity to all 45 territorial police forces across the UK. This will enhance the ability of frontline police officers and staff in the identification of state-directed crimes and the actions that can, and must, be taken to escalate matters and mitigate such activity.

[Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

The Intelligence and Security Committee was set up specifically to fill a gap in oversight whereby this House could not directly look at highly classified and sensitive information. Having chaired that Committee throughout the previous Parliament, when we undertook our very detailed and sensitive inquiry into China—the published version of which was quite well received, to put it mildly—I can assure the Minister that absolutely no aspect of this matter could not be shared with the ISC. Can she tell the House whether the National Security Adviser has discussed with the ISC and briefed it on the security aspects of this proposal, the proceeding of which enjoys such hostility on both sides of the House?

[Seema Malhotra]

I recognise and acknowledge the right hon. Member’s deep experience in the House and from chairing the ISC. Matters of security and intelligence continue to be the first priority of this Government. In relation to national security and in respect of the National Security Adviser, our partners abroad and Five Eyes—which was included in the urgent question—it is important to recognise that we continue to have conversations about security and intelligence in respect of all areas of concern to the United Kingdom and, indeed, in relation to China.

Ukraine

Julian Lewis Excerpts

Wednesday 14th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Stephen Doughty)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the situation in Ukraine.

Next month marks four years since Russia launched its illegal and barbarous full-scale invasion of Ukraine, but Ukraine has stood strong. We have stood alongside Ukraine and will continue to do so. I am particularly proud that this week also marks one year on from our agreement of a crucial 100-year partnership with Ukraine—I know that it enjoys wide support across the House—which we will celebrate and take further forward this week.

This has been four years in which the Ukrainian people have stood firm, bravely resisting the assault on their sovereign territory, and four years of enduring relentless drone and missile strikes that have killed civilians and torn through homes, infrastructure, hospitals and schools. Like many hon. Members across the House, I have been in Kyiv while such attacks have been under way. I have seen the devastation and damage caused and the implications for the civilians—the ordinary people of Ukraine—who face that. I have been in the bunkers where children have to take their lessons because of the attacks, and I have heard the harrowing stories of those who have been abducted and taken by barbarous and illegal Russian action.

Just last week, Russia launched 252 drones and 36 missiles at targets across Ukraine in yet another attack that killed and injured dozens of civilians and left millions without power or heating as temperatures plunged to minus 20°. The attack also included an Oreshnik intermediate-range ballistic missile that struck critical infrastructure near the Polish border. Russia’s use, for the second time, of a hypersonic IRBM in Ukraine—this time close to NATO territory—is a reckless and dangerous escalation. Moscow claimed that it was responding to an alleged Ukrainian attack on one of Putin’s residences, which is a baseless allegation and yet another example of Russia using disinformation to justify its actions. Just last week I discussed disinformation with hon. Members at the Foreign Affairs Committee. I know that it is an issue that many of us across the House take deeply seriously.

As an aside, I note the absence in the Chamber yet again of one party—we all note that, as there is a strong cross-party consensus on Ukraine. Of course, that party has willingly repeated Russian narratives on NATO and Ukraine, and indeed its former leader in Wales took bribes from Russia to share those narratives. Reform Members might like this to go away, but it is not just their words that speak volumes; their absence does, too.

I genuinely commend the Opposition and the other parties present, because I have had many conversations with the Members here, and I think all of us, whichever side of the House we are on, have stood resolutely with Ukraine since the start of this conflict. That very much represents where the British people stand on this illegal and barbarous aggression on our continent. We know from our own history what such aggression can mean, and we will continue to take that stand. I am proud of those in my constituency and all our constituencies who continue to support Ukrainians in the UK, and continue to stand with Ukraine in its fight against Russia.

Russia’s barbaric actions come against the backdrop of US-led peace negotiations. Time and again, Ukraine has shown that it is the party of peace, and just last week, President Zelensky came together with world leaders and the United States in Paris to discuss next steps. We welcome the significant progress that has been made, and the work of President Trump and many others to take that forward. Alongside France, the UK has led the coalition of the willing, carrying out detailed military planning on the security guarantees that are needed to insure against future Russian aggression in the event of a peace settlement.

In Paris, at the largest meeting yet of the coalition, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister joined President Macron and President Zelensky to sign a declaration of intent. That declaration confirms that in the event of a peace deal, the UK and France would deploy forces to Ukraine. It paves the way for a legal framework under which British, French and partner forces could operate on Ukrainian soil, securing its skies and seas and regenerating its armed forces for the future. As the Prime Minister has said, if British troops were to deploy under this agreement, the matter would come before this House for a debate and a vote. The Paris declaration agreed between us and our coalition partners sets out the security guarantees that are to be activated once a ceasefire takes effect.

[Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

I have previously suggested that to have an occupied eastern part of Ukraine under Russian control while the western part of unoccupied Ukraine was left as a military vacuum would be a recipe for disaster. However, it is of concern that the alliance that stood firm at the end of world war two to ensure that West Germany did not get encroached upon by Soviet forces from the east is not still in being, as far as Ukraine is concerned, because of the ambiguous attitude of President Trump. Does the Minister have a view on why President Trump is so clear when it comes to dictatorship in and aggression by Iran, yet has such a strangely different view when it comes to the same two features of Russian behaviour?

[Stephen Doughty]

I have huge respect for the right hon. Gentleman, as he knows, but I would gently disagree with his suggestion. On President Trump’s leadership, in the important discussions that took place in Paris with the United States and other coalition partners, it was set out clearly how security guarantees would be activated. More broadly, I am proud that we continue to stand with the United States in NATO, and proud of our commitment to article 5 and to defending the security of the alliance. That is absolutely crucial to our security, and the security of all of us in the alliance.

We of course support all the progress towards a just and lasting peace, but it is crucial that we keep Ukraine in the fight. We all know that its armed forces are fighting heroically and with great determination. Like many Members, I have met those who have served on the frontlines in Ukraine, and seen the extraordinary bravery and fortitude that they show, but we must recognise that they are under immense pressure, so we need to get them the support that they need to defend themselves, and to ensure that they have support in the future.

Iran

Julian Lewis Excerpts

Tuesday 13th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Yvette Cooper]

It is exactly because we want peace and stability in the region that we supported the 20-point plan to achieve a ceasefire in Gaza. As I have said, that is still fragile and there is a huge amount of work still to do, including a humanitarian surge in support and the decommissioning of weapons from Hamas, and it is important that the whole international community comes together to support that.

[Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

In March, it will be the fifth anniversary of the signing of the comprehensive strategic partnership between Iran and China, an unholy alliance between religious fanatics and communist totalitarians, to whom we are regrettably about to award a super-embassy, complete with secret dungeons, in London. Will the Foreign Secretary tell me what estimate the Government have made of the dependence of the Iranian regime’s survival on its support from China, not least the huge export of Iranian oil to China?

[Yvette Cooper]

I urge China to support the UN sanctions process that was triggered by the snapback that the UK, France and Germany instigated in October. It is essential that China does so, because we have seen the pressure that is needed around the nuclear programme, which affects all our safety and is immensely important. It is not just China but countries around the world who should support that sanctions process.