Chagos Islands

Priti Patel Excerpts

Wednesday 5th February 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

[Priti Patel (Witham) (Con)]

Let us be clear: Labour’s disastrous deal is one of the worst foreign policy failures in modern British history. Labour is surrendering an absolutely critical strategic defence asset that we operate together with our closest security partner—now we are told we will have to pay billions for the privilege of doing so. When Labour negotiates, Britain loses, and loses big time.

While this House has been kept in the dark on the details, our counterparts in Mauritius have not. They had a robust debate in Parliament, which many of us watched on YouTube. It was just extraordinary. The Prime Minister of Mauritius gave his Parliament a detailed account, and even a chronology, of the deal and the negotiations that led to it—details that Labour repeatedly refused to disclose to this House and which the Prime Minister of Mauritius set out in no uncertain terms so that nobody should be in any doubt.

This weak, hapless Government have backed down and the House deserves answers today. Has the Minister given away our ability to unilaterally extend the period over which the UK can exercise sovereign rights on Diego Garcia? The Mauritius Prime Minister says he has. Has the Minister given away our ability to exercise sovereign rights over Diego Garcia entirely? If so, what is the cost? Is it £9 billion? Is it £18 billion? Is it to be inflation-proofed, as the Mauritian Prime Minister stated in Parliament yesterday? If the Minister is frontloading payments, what other services will be cut here in the United Kingdom in the immediate term to make room and pay for the deal? When Labour is imposing taxes on education, family farms and businesses, and has cut winter fuel payments for vulnerable pensioners, how can this eye-watering amount of money be justified to lease back a territory for which—guess what—we already own the freehold?

Will the Minister also say whether he will have to make defence cuts to absorb this enormous cost? Should the Ministry of Defence be shouldering the costs? What budget will it come from? Will the Government count the payments towards the 2.5% defence target?

On the sovereignty of bases, does the deal pose a new precedent for other bases, such as Cyprus? The Mauritius Prime Minister said last month that his Attorney General met the Minister and the UK Attorney General. Will the Minister confirm what was discussed? Importantly, may I ask again: if the Government think this is such a good deal, does he stand by that and will he defend our interests?

[Stephen Doughty]

I have to say again to the right hon. Lady that it was her Government—a Government that she was part of—who started the negotiations and went through 11 rounds of negotiations. She knows full well the reasons why. Quite frankly, I find it extraordinary for her to talk about defence and the national security of this country, when we are having to rebuild and clear up the mess that her Government made of our armed forces and our defence. I am very glad to be joined on the Front Bench by the Minister for the Armed Forces, my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard). It is this Government who are rebuilding our defence, increasing our spending, and delivering for our armed forces and national security around the world. Indeed, this agreement is a crucial part of that. A lot of the figures being speculated about in the media should, as I said yesterday, be taken with a pinch of salt. We have been clear: there is no change to the substance or the quantum in relation to this agreement.

The right hon. Lady raises inflation. I am surprised she mentions that, because indexation was there in the public statement made about the negotiations on 3 October. Indeed, it was part of the agreement from her Government, so I am very surprised that she asks that question.

Lastly, I am deeply disappointed, as are our friends in the overseas territories around the world, that constant false comparisons keep being made with our other bases and our other overseas territories. This is not a read-across situation. We are committed to our base on Cyprus. We are committed to Gibraltar. We are committed to the Falklands. We have been absolutely and resolutely clear about that. To continue to suggest that there is some sort of threat to them quite frankly undermines our national security and does not strengthen it in any way.

Sudan and Eastern DRC

Priti Patel Excerpts

Tuesday 28th January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Priti Patel (Witham) (Con)]

I am grateful to the Foreign Secretary for advance sight of his statement and for the way he has spoken about Sudan and the DRC. Both conflicts are truly shocking, and are resulting in an ongoing displacement crisis, with millions of innocent people having to flee their homes. As he has highlighted in his statement and in his discussions with the African nations and their diplomats, armed conflict in Africa continues to cause immense human suffering and, of course, greater pressure on United Nations peacekeeping. The scale of food insecurity is enormous. The most horrific crimes are being committed against civilians: systematic human rights abuses; sexual violence; torture; and mass civilian casualties.

We are deeply concerned by the intensification of the fighting in eastern DRC and its humanitarian consequences. We continue to urge all parties to deliver on their commitments, which were agreed through the regional peace process. We welcome the mediation efforts facilitated by the Angolan-led Luanda peace process and continue to urge all parties to commit to further political dialogue.

In government, my party was committed to the protection of civilians in and around Goma. The Foreign Secretary will be deeply aware of the long-standing work that took place there, including through the three-year humanitarian programme for the east of DRC, which sought to deliver lifesaving emergency assistance to more than 1.1 million people and to protect and build resilience for the most vulnerable. Despite all of that, it is important that we learn more and understand what the root causes are and how we can bring greater stability and peace to the DRC.

What is happening in Darfur must also not be tolerated. The conflict in Sudan has put pressure on neighbouring countries, which are already under immense strain, and is creating a level of human misery that is totally unconscionable. Our main overreaching objective is clear, and we both agree that we need an immediate ceasefire and an end to all hostilities in Sudan.

The UK Government, working with international partners, must leave no stone unturned as they try to press the warring parties into a ceasefire. The Government must also do everything within their power to hold those responsible for the atrocities to account, because red lines have been crossed in this conflict and we cannot stand by.

The Foreign Secretary will know that the Conservative Government applied a range of sanctions in the past on those supporting the activities of the Rapid Support Forces and the Sudanese armed forces. As the penholder on Sudan at the United Nations Security Council, will the Foreign Secretary update the House on what actions are likely to follow at the UNSC? The world can and should be doing much more, as the Foreign Secretary has rightly said, so what recent discussions has he had with other countries that could be doing much more to leverage their own influence? That also applies to the neighbouring regions. Will he provide an update on the work of Saudi Arabia and others helping with the important Jeddah process and whether that is on track?

On sanctions, does the Foreign Secretary intend to go further, perhaps following the US’s lead? Did he discuss the matter in his call with Secretary Rubio, because Sudan was not in the read-out and was not referenced at all? Will he speak more about the United Nations reform that he has just touched on? The US Administration are also reviewing all their aid programmes, so was that discussed in his call with Secretary Rubio? Beyond sanctions, is he working to identify other hard-hitting ways to put pressure on the leadership of the RSF and the SAF and those supporting those awful war machines?

While the conflict continues to rage, we need a laser-like focus on the humanitarian assistance, and I do not just mean on the type or volume—important, though, that is. If British aid is being sent and is getting through, we must ensure that it gets over the border and is distributed to the people it is intended to help. Will the Foreign Secretary share his latest assessment of the state of the border crossing in Sudan? How much aid is getting through each day and from which crossing points? When the aid gets inside Sudan, are the safeguards there to ensure that it gets to the people who need it, and does he have the mechanisms in place to measure the impact?

On the subject of aid, this might be premature, but will the Foreign Secretary speak about the Government’s plans for the future of aid funding given the forthcoming spending review? While this dreadful war persists, what is he doing to increase efforts to collect evidence of the crimes committed so that those responsible can be held accountable and face justice?

The Foreign Secretary has spoken in recent days about the vile people smuggling gangs. He mentioned the matter not just in this statement, but in his previous written statements. Will further comprehensive action be taken to target those miserable, vile and evil criminal gangs? What more will the Government do to put this whole issue to an end and ensure that this destruction and displacement across these two countries comes to an end?

[Mr Lammy]

I am grateful to the right hon. Lady. Of course, I know that she too draws some heritage from the African continent and so will take these issues very seriously. I also know the work of the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell) before coming to office. He did a lot on the humanitarian aid side, particularly in relation to Sudan.

The conflict in Sudan has created, as I said, the world’s largest humanitarian crisis. Thirty million people—half of Sudan’s population—are now in urgent need. To make it clear to the House, that is more than Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Gaza and Mali combined. That is how bad the situation currently is. That is why I raised this issue with Secretary of State Rubio when I spoke to him yesterday—although, because of all the issues in front of us, it was a brief conversation, we both said we would return to the issue, and we discussed the fact that I am keen to convene a group of nations, including regional partners on this very same issue.

On sanctions, since the 2023 conflict the UK has frozen the assets of nine commercial entities linked to the parties involved in the conflict. We obviously do not talk about what more we might be considering, but of course we keep that under review.

The right hon. Lady rightly asked about UN reform. I am pleased to see that the United States recently made statements—under the last Administration, but I am sure that that is a cross-party position—that Africa should be represented on the UN Security Council. That has been our long-standing view over here.

My assessment of the Adré crossing is real concern that the Government in Sudan are saying that that crossing should be closed on 15 February. We disagree with them; it should remain open. There are real issues about access, and one of the things I am pressing for with international colleagues is that the UN should be represented. Its agencies and bodies should be able to work unfettered in Sudan, and civilians must be protected. Recent events at El Fasher are very worrying indeed, but I hope that with regional partners and those internationally engaged, we can at least come to an agreement that the UN should be present and that civilians should be protected, particularly when they are overwhelmingly women and children.

I did also raise the position in the DRC with Secretary of State Rubio when I spoke to him yesterday—in fact, he raised that issue with me, and his real concerns about it. I was clear with President Kagame on Sunday that Rwanda must act to de-escalate this conflict and return to dialogue. I said that an attack on Goma would provoke a strong response from the international community, and from speaking to other nations, my sense is that that is what Rwanda can expect. Rwanda receives over $1 billion of global aid every year, including around £32 million of bilateral UK assistance. All of that is under threat when you attack your neighbours, and we in this House are clear that we cannot have countries challenging the territorial integrity of other countries. Just as we will not tolerate it in the continent of Europe, we cannot tolerate it wherever in the world it happens. We have to be clear about that.

The UK has sanctioned M23 and other armed groups through the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Act 2018. There are currently 56 individuals and nine entities listed under UN sanctions, and again, we keep that list under review. The shadow Foreign Secretary has rightly talked about the work of the last Government in relation to humanitarian assistance, and I put on record the work that they led on both sides of this horrendous conflict. We are providing £62 million this year for programmes in eastern DRC.

Middle East

Priti Patel Excerpts

Thursday 16th January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Priti Patel (Witham) (Con)]

All Members recognise the fragile and sensitive nature of the current situation. There is a long road ahead at one of the most important moments for the middle east, which we all hope will usher in a sustainable end to the dreadful conflict in Gaza. It is a conflict that we should never forget was triggered by the horrific Hamas terror attacks of 7 October 2023—the worst terror attack in Israel’s history and the most murderous pogrom against the Jewish people since the Holocaust.

We have in our thoughts today the victims of that appalling massacre: those who lost their lives, including the hostages murdered in captivity, and those whose lives have been changed forever. Every single hostage must be returned safely home and reunited with family and friends after 15 months of the most unimaginable cruelty at the hands of Hamas. Even in the midst of that unimaginable pain and anxiety, the families of those held hostage have kept the torch burning for their loved ones, with publicity highlighting their plight with such resilience and tremendous bravery.

We are joined in the House today by the families of hostages who we know will not be eligible for immediate release. I recently met Emily Damari’s mother Mandy and Dani Miran, whose son Omri is also in captivity. We all pay tribute to them all for their unceasing campaign to secure the release of their loved ones and all those in captivity. This will, of course, be a time of great emotions for them—mixed emotions—and in the coming weeks, we must continue to wrap our arms around those hostage families.

Like the Foreign Secretary, I acknowledge the important role of Qatar, Egypt and the United States in getting us to where we are today in these talks. We will all follow these developments closely in the days ahead, and we will expect the UK Government to be fully engaged and involved in the heavy lifting that is required at this crucial time to make this agreement work and last.

To that end, can the Foreign Secretary to tell the House specifically what role the UK Government have played in these negotiations and about their contribution to reaching this agreement? Can he give assurances that the UK will help Israel in any way possible to support the safe return of the hostages, which will be so critical in ensuring that the agreement endures? Can he inform the House—it may yet be too early—whether any of the Palestinian prisoners being released were responsible for the death or injury of British nationals, and about the steps being put in place to manage the potential risk of dangerous individuals being set free? On the question of humanitarian aid to Gaza, what work has he undertaken to unpick the awful bottlenecks that we have seen over months and months, while we have seen innocent civilians suffer? Will civilians now receive the vital aid that we have been told will get through to bring essential relief to communities across Gaza?

On the future governance of Gaza, we have so far heard little about the “day after” plan, but this is extremely important; I know the Foreign Secretary will come back to this House in due course, but I would welcome his thoughts on the matter. Is it the Foreign Secretary’s position that Hamas must have no role in the future of Gaza? We want to see an end to the brutality with which they have conducted themselves. Does he agree that if the Palestinian Authority do indeed assume responsibility in Gaza, in order to have an enduring and lasting peace, they must undertake the most comprehensive reform in their history, with serious shifts not just in their behaviour but on education and welfare, and that they must bring the course of democracy through to the end that we would like to see? Has he this week delivered that unambiguous message to the Palestinian leadership?

The right people must be involved to ensure that solid foundations are put in place on which Gaza can rebuild and to ensure a lasting, better future so that every generation can live their lives in peace, with the opportunities that have been denied to them for too long. In the days ahead, our focus needs to be on securing the release of the hostages, getting the aid into Gaza and working for that lasting peace.

However, there are some related points that the Foreign Secretary will also need to consider. On Israel, for example, that includes whether the changes to the approach on the International Criminal Court arrest warrants will happen and what should happen from the Government’s position; it also includes the arrangements for the future reconstruction of Gaza. He has just touched on this, but what contribution does he think the United Kingdom should make? His thoughts would be welcome. There are many complexities here. Will he also commit to inserting the UK’s enthusiastic approach to fresh discussions on the Abraham accords and the role that will play in the peace, stability and prosperity in the region?

Finally, we have seen for over a year the world’s only Jewish state being ruthlessly attacked from all sides, from the Hamas terrorists in Gaza to the Hezbollah terrorists in Lebanon and the Houthis in Yemen, from which Iranian-linked militias in Iraq have been directing their course of action, while Iran and its proxies have used innocent Palestinian civilians as human shields without any care for their welfare or wellbeing. We need to know that this Government will step up when it comes to addressing the root causes, which rest in Tehran. The Government, the international community and all of us will want a robust strategy towards Iran if we are to build a lasting and sustainable peace in the middle east.

[Mr Lammy]

I thank the shadow Foreign Secretary for her remarks and for her tone. Doing this role, one understands the effort that one’s predecessors have put in, so I want to put on the record once again that the right hon. Members for Braintree (Mr Cleverly) and for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell) and Lord Cameron, before me, made tremendous efforts on behalf of the UK Government to get us to this point. I know that they, like me, will sincerely wish that we could have reached this point sooner. This is indeed a day on which we can be grateful for the UK’s diplomacy in getting us to this point.

The right hon. Lady asks about the role that the UK has played. She will know that it was quite right that Qatar and Egypt, with their proximity to Hamas, should be central in bringing about the ceasefire; and that the United States, with its particular relationship with Israel, should also stand alongside them. But she will know, because of our complex foreign policy relationship with all those parties, the tremendous effort that UK diplomats have put in to get us to this path. Indeed, I was with them in Israel and in the occupied territories on Monday this week.

It was very important to be with British hostage families in particular, to assure them and counsel them that my judgment was that we would get to this point, as fragile as it is—I want to emphasise the fragility—at this time, but also to be in the occupied territories, the west bank and east Jerusalem, to spend time with President Abbas, to discuss with him what now needs to happen in Gaza in terms of its reconstruction and the reform that the right hon. Lady rightly emphasises is essential for the Palestinian Authority.

The right hon. Lady knows that we have Sir Michael Barber working with the Palestinian Authority to lift up that capacity in the reforms that will be necessary to play that role—alongside others, clearly—in Gaza. When I think of others, I think about the international community as well, but alongside them it is important that the UK plays its part. I will come back to the subject of reconstruction in a moment.

The right hon. Lady rightly talks about the humanitarian situation in Gaza. We have provided £112 million in this financial year, including £41 million specifically for UNRWA. We want to see the number of trucks increase and the figure that has been set in the ceasefire agreement met. I will say this, though: the situation will require proper governance in Gaza if we are to achieve that. At the moment, we have gangs. There is a possibility, as the space opens up, that actually we will get an increase in gangs and less aid to the people who need it. This is the first phase of the deal. There will still be hostages left after the first phase and into the second phase, and potentially into the third phase. We know that able men are not part of the first phase. They need humanitarian aid at this time and hostage families press me to ensure that their loved ones are getting access to that humanitarian aid. So this is a fragile moment and the UK is pressing for a political process, because only a political process will get not just the ceasefire, but the long-term stability that means Gazans can truly rebuild their lives.

The right hon. Lady talks about a “day after” plan. The UK is ready to play a leading role in this process, with international and regional partners. It should be predicated on tangible progress, in our view, towards a Palestinian state, with Gaza and the west bank united under one Government. The Palestinian Authority’s role in Gaza must therefore be front and centre. Planning needs to advance security both for Gazans and for Israel, and Israel’s security will be fundamental if we are to bring this to an end. That will take intense negotiation and discussion. There clearly will be an important role for the international community in the coming days but, in this fragile moment of phase 1, if we are to complete phase 3 then we will need that intensity in terms of negotiation. My view is very clear: there cannot be a role for Hamas. The terrorism must come to an end. Trust has to be rebuilt. There cannot be a role for Hamas.

Only with that candle that we keep alight for a two-state solution can we actually reach the normalisation that is at the heart of any building on the Abraham accords and the relationship between Saudi Arabia and Israel that can bring a lot of prosperity for people in the middle east.

The right hon. Lady is right that Iran remains a malign force. This week, British diplomats were discussing with Iran its nuclear programme and what needs to happen if we are not to see the snapback of our sanctions as a consequence of the joint comprehensive plan of action later this year. We will do all that we can diplomatically. This is the moment when the Iranians need to step up and do the right thing, and I know that is acutely in the minds of the incoming US Administration.

Oral Answers to Questions

Priti Patel Excerpts

Tuesday 14th January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Foreign Secretary.

[Priti Patel (Witham) (Con)]

This weekend, we had the indignity of seeing the Chancellor of the Exchequer fleeing the financial mess that she has left at home in the United Kingdom while embracing the Chinese Communist party—Labour’s friends—and the Chinese Government in a desperate attempt to secure money from them. Can the Foreign Secretary explain how this new love-in with one of the biggest threats to our national security and freedom helps our national interests? What message does that send to Jimmy Lai, Hong Kong BNOs facing threats in our country, and others living in fear of China? Is this Government’s reset with China the cause of the delay in implementing the foreign influence registration scheme?

[Mr Lammy]

The right hon. Lady comes to the Dispatch Box with chutzpah and a brass neck after a period in which we had about seven different China policies from the last Government, who left a huge £22 billion black hole in the economy. I might remind her that President Trump has invited the Chinese President to his inauguration, and that trade between the US and China has grown. We can also protect our national security, just as the United States has done. That is why we will compete with China where we need to and challenge it where we must, but we must co-operate in important areas of trade, because we want to see growth in our economy. We are absolutely minded to move forward with that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Foreign Secretary.

[Priti Patel (Witham) (Con)]

All Members of the House will praise the courage and resilience of the hostage families and have the hostages in their thoughts right now, particularly Emily’s mother Mandy and Emily herself. Reports of the progress being made on the hostage negotiations are truly welcome, including the Foreign Secretary’s discussions during and after his visit to Israel. Can he give an update on what information he has received about the proof of life of those hostages? Importantly, what resources will our Government be providing to support the hostages through the release process over the period of time speculated, and to bring about a sustainable end to this awful conflict?

[Mr Lammy]

First, we do all we can to establish proof of life. The right hon. Lady will understand that this situation is fast moving, and even post any deal it can take some degree of time before the hostages come out. I would therefore not want to be pushed on that issue at the Dispatch Box, but I want to assure her that we are doing all we can to continue to make that necessary assessment. As I say, we are—I hope—on the brink of a deal. It will be the first phase of a deal that will probably last six weeks, and that is important to bear in mind. All of us in this House hope to get to a ceasefire and the necessary rebuilding of Gaza, with Israel safe and secure—that will be very important—so that the middle east can move forward in an atmosphere of peace.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Foreign Secretary.

[Priti Patel (Witham) (Con)]

Can the Foreign Secretary explain why he is surrendering the Chagos Islands and front-loading payments to the Government of Mauritius to lease back a base at Diego Garcia at a cost of £9 billion to UK taxpayers? If that is such a good deal, why is he so secretive about it?

[Mr Lammy]

I know that the shadow Foreign Secretary is new to the job, but I remind her that her Government did 10 rounds of negotiations on this issue and we picked it up, and that the White House, the State Department and the Pentagon believe that it is a good deal, as do the Indian Government.

[Priti Patel]

Following the Foreign Secretary’s meetings in Saudi Arabia and with the new Foreign Minister of Syria over the weekend, what conditions did he stipulate for the removal of sanctions in Syria, and in what kind of timeframe?

[Mr Lammy]

The right hon. Lady raises an important issue. We will judge the new Syrian Government by their actions, not their words. We are, alongside allies, reviewing sanctions at the moment. I will not comment in detail on that, but we are clear that we want to see an inclusive Government who prosper. We have been pleased with what we have seen so far, but as has already been mentioned, some of what we have seen on the ground has not been good. We will judge them by their actions, not their words, and we will not go faster than she would expect us to.

Northern Gaza

Priti Patel Excerpts

Tuesday 7th January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Foreign Secretary.

[Priti Patel (Witham) (Con)]

I thank the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Layla Moran) for securing this urgent question. Innocent civilians in Gaza are suffering and the situation is desperate; everyone in the House recognises that and we all want aid and support to reach them. Does the Minister also recognise that innocent civilians are being used continuously as human shields by Hamas, which has no regard for their safety or welfare? There are no excuses for the current situation. [Interruption.] Perhaps the hon. Member for Middlesbrough and Thornaby East (Andy McDonald) can listen to my comments and then he can comment afterwards.

Getting aid over the border is absolutely critical. In the light of the Minister’s words, he will also recognise, notwithstanding his comments about the previous Conservative Government, that that Government actively identified different ways to get aid into Gaza and secure food aid in particular. A special representative for humanitarian affairs was appointed, who was on the ground with a clear remit to address bottlenecks and those issues. There were clear proposals put to the Government of Israel to increase the delivery of aid and support. There was active dialogue and Israel made a number of significant and welcome commitments. Will the Minister give details of the recent engagement on fulfilling those vital commitments, how those responsible are being held to account and whether the Foreign Office, under his Government, has identified and proposed new and alternative routes for aid delivery in recent weeks?

Importantly, the only other way to bring this appalling humanitarian conflict and suffering to a sustainable end in Gaza is for Hamas to release all the hostages. I appreciate that we have debated this difficult matter previously, but may I ask the Minister what discussions are currently taking place? The onus, as we know, is on Hamas, but what steps are the Government taking right now? There are many hostages that we know of, including Emily Damari whom we have spoken about before. All our thoughts are with those hostages and their families. We must know what the UK’s position is, especially in relation to calling out Hamas. US Secretary of State Antony Blinken was right to say at the weekend that we have not seen a great deal of condemnation. May I conclude by asking the Minister what points of influence we have with Israel in particular and what his Government are doing to address this conflict?

[Mr Falconer]

The shadow Foreign Secretary rightly raises the important role of the special representative for humanitarian affairs. He remains in post and continues to have dialogue with the Israelis and others about what can be done to ensure that adequate aid gets into Gaza. There has been a great deal of discussion about different routes. I have been to North Sinai to see the routes in through al-Arish, and my right hon. Friend the Minister for Development has been in Jordan to see the routes there. The most fundamental of all of these questions is who controls the crossings. In most cases, that is the Israeli Government and the steps that need to be taken sit most acutely with them.

There are, of course, other questions that are important and relevant, not least those to do with law and order in the Gaza strip, where there are serious and concerning reports of looting. None the less, getting the aid in is vital, and that is through the crossings. We have been raising these points forcefully with the Israeli Government, and it has been disappointing to see with my own eyes British aid piling up in al-Arish, despite the good efforts of the special envoy and others to encourage the Israelis to make progress in delivering the flood of aid into Gaza that they promised.

Pro-democracy Campaigners: Arrests

Priti Patel Excerpts

Tuesday 7th January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Priti Patel (Witham) (Con)]

(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs if he will make a statement on the Hong Kong police offering rewards for the arrest of pro-democracy campaigners, including British nationals overseas resident in the United Kingdom.

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

I thank the right hon. Lady for her question on this most important matter. I am glad to reassure her that the Foreign Secretary issued a statement on Christmas eve, immediately following the Hong Kong police’s issuing of arrest warrants for the six pro-democracy campaigners. As the Foreign Secretary said, those targeted on Christmas eve were merely exercising their right to freedom of expression. We will not tolerate any attempts by foreign Governments to coerce, intimidate, harass or harm their critics overseas, especially here in the UK.

We call on Beijing to repeal the national security law, including its extraterritorial reach, and on the Hong Kong authorities to end their targeting of individuals in the UK and elsewhere for seeking to exercise their basic rights. Let me reassure the right hon. Member that senior British diplomats immediately went out to reiterate the Foreign Secretary’s deep concerns directly in Hong Kong and Beijing over the Christmas period. Officials here in London immediately raised concerns with the Chinese embassy and the Hong Kong Economic and Trade Office here in London.

China’s imposition of the national security law has clearly eroded the rights and freedoms of Hongkongers. I raised these concerns with the authorities during my visit to Hong Kong, as did the Foreign Secretary during his visit to Beijing. Following the latest arrest warrants issued by Hong Kong police, ensuring the continued safety of the pro-democracy campaigners remains a top priority for the Government. Let me assure hon. Members that the UK will always stand up for the people of Hong Kong. The Government are deeply committed to supporting all members of the Hong Kong community who have relocated to the UK, making such valuable contributions to life here.

[Priti Patel]

I thank Mr Speaker for granting this urgent question. This is an incredibly serious matter. As the Minister and the House know, on Christmas eve we saw the Hong Kong police once again trying to give the national security law extraterritorial reach and threatening people on British soil. We unequivocally reject any attempt to apply the national security law in the UK. In government, the Conservative party were consistent and clear that it should be repealed.

Today, I want to press the Government on how they will respond to this latest attempt to clamp down on freedoms and dismantle the essence of what made Hong Kong such a special and successful place. Will the Minister explain what practical steps are being taken across the Government to protect those in the UK with bounties placed on their heads, and assess the security of the Hong Kong community in the UK? They have come to the UK under the BNO route established by the last Government when I was Home Secretary, to live in the UK free from fear of intimidation. We must have a zero-tolerance approach to such behaviours.

Has the Foreign Secretary raised this outrageous attempt to suffocate fundamental freedoms with his counterpart, Wang Yi? Once again, does this not show that this Government’s supposed reset with China is just one way? Before meeting President Xi, the Prime Minister said that he wanted a relationship that is consistent, durable and respectful, and stated that the pair agreed that there would be no more surprises. Does the Minister believe that trying to arrest BNOs in the UK is compatible with any of those comments? Did the Hong Kong or Chinese authorities notify Ministers in advance, or was this a surprise?

Will the Minister confirm, with a simple yes or no, whether the Chancellor will raise these bounties at the highest level when she jets off to China next week to beg for a quick investment to bail out her failing economic strategy? She cannot ignore human rights issues, whether in Hong Kong or Xinjiang, on her visit. Will the Government take this incident into account when considering the planning application for the new Chinese super-embassy in London?

[Catherine West]

I thank the right hon. Lady for raising a number of concerns. We are as one on the outrageous attempts to reach across the water to try to impose any intimidation on people based here in the UK. She mentions other human rights concerns, such as those in Xinjiang, and says that long-standing policies, such as the national health service not purchasing cotton equipment from the Xinjiang region, are the right policies. Of course, those policies were brought in following pressure from Members from her own party over previous Parliaments. She is also right to emphasise the importance of the welcome programme for BNO passport holders, which she brought in as Home Secretary, which provides an enormous contrast between a repressive regime and one that welcomes people newly arrived in the UK. Indeed, it is across our regions that the 12 hubs, which were created under her leadership of the Home Office, are going from strength to strength. They are giving people based in the UK the confidence to raise their voice, become active in their local communities, take English classes and all the rest.

The right hon. Lady mentions the Chancellor’s trip; I knew this would be one of her themes, so I have come prepared. As she is well aware, we are in a position where our economy is quite fragile. While we have clear national security concerns—today is a good example of those—we have to balance those concerns with being an outwardly facing and globally trading nation, where we need to sometimes be involved with countries whose values may not align completely with ours. I make no apologies for trying to support British business abroad—including in Hong Kong, where British businesses have said how lovely it is to see MPs visit them. I was able not only to be robust in my condemnation of these sorts of actions, but to support British business, our friends who are based in difficult places and undertaking hardship postings, and our diplomatic staff, who live our values day by day to uphold the strong framework of human rights abroad.

British Indian Ocean Territory: Sovereignty

Priti Patel Excerpts

Wednesday 18th December 2024 Commons Chamber

[Priti Patel (Witham) (Con)]

(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs if he will provide an update on the negotiations between His Majesty’s Government and the Government of Mauritius over the future sovereignty of the British Indian Ocean Territory.

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

I thank the right hon. Lady for her question. We welcome yesterday’s reiteration by Prime Minister Ramgoolam of his willingness to conclude a deal with the UK. We are confident that the agreement is in both sides’ shared interests, and we will continue working with the new Mauritian Government to finalise the deal. Prime Minister Ramgoolam’s comments follow his commitment to completing the negotiations, following his election, in an exchange of letters with the Prime Minister.

As part of the usual Government-to-Government engagement, the Prime Minister’s BIOT envoy, Jonathan Powell, met PM Ramgoolam in late November to start the process, and that was followed last week by a visit to Mauritius by the UK’s chief negotiator Harriet Mathews and other officials for the talks. Those talks were productive, and it is completely understandable that the new Mauritian Government will want time to study the details.

It would not be appropriate or usual for me to give a running commentary on what was discussed during routine and private engagements, nor on any potential future engagements. I am confident, however, that we have agreed a good and fair deal that is in both sides’ interests. It protects the base at proportionate cost; it has been supported across the national security architecture in the United States and by India for those very reasons. As I have said a number of times in this House, the treaty will contain clear commitments on robust security arrangements, including preventing the presence of foreign security forces on the outer islands and ensuring the base can continue to operate securely and effectively.

The agreement is subject to finalising a treaty. Following signature, the Government will bring forward a Bill to enable implementation of that treaty. Both Houses of Parliament will have the opportunity to scrutinise that treaty before ratification.

[Priti Patel]

Thank you for granting this urgent question, Mr Speaker. Once again Ministers have been reluctantly dragged to the House—in fact, I have just seen the Foreign Secretary leg it. In a world of increasing danger, change and uncertainty, why are they so keen to surrender this strategic asset? We have been repeatedly told by Ministers that this is a good deal and that it has the support of the national security apparatus—we keep hearing that, but where is the evidence to justify those hollow claims?

If the deal is so good, why have the Government been so secretive about the details? Can the Minister explain? I am sorry that the Foreign Secretary has abandoned the House and not even come to this statement, because yet again we are responding to media reports. Can the Minister confirm that we will be able to extend the lease on the military base after 99 years, as reported? Will we and the US still have full autonomy of operations? What safeguards will be in place to stop other countries, including China, trying to establish themselves on the base or near the military base on Diego Garcia? How much is the British taxpayer going to be liable for each year and in total over 99 years, now that we know we will be paying for the privilege of giving away these islands? What exactly is our money going to be paying for?

The Government claim that they cannot disclose information about the lease, but surely the Minister can at least say—explain and be honest—where on earth the budget is coming from. If it is accounted for in the Budget forecast presented in the autumn—we all heard about those Budget forecasts recently—will the Minister tell us what the funding will be for the economic partnership and the trust fund for Chagossian people? Can the Minister also tell us what aspects of the deal the new Mauritian Government want reconsidering in the response? What consideration is being given to provide more funding or to weaken any protections that may be in this lease? Importantly, can he explain why the views of the Chagossian community have been so ignored?

When the whole world can see that this proposed deal was falling apart, the Foreign Secretary and this Government have tried to flog it constantly. Not only is this a monumental failure of statecraft from this Labour Government, but it is also a significant humiliation for the Foreign Secretary and his credibility and for the Prime Minister. Why are Labour putting our security at risk, ignoring Chagossians, and letting our standing go into freefall in this world?

[Mr Speaker]

I remind Members that these contributions should take no longer than two minutes.

Syria

Priti Patel Excerpts

Monday 9th December 2024 Commons Chamber

[Priti Patel (Witham) (Con)]

I am grateful to the Foreign Secretary for his statement. The Conservative Government called for President Assad to go more than a decade ago, and few will shed any tears at this vile tyrant’s removal from office. He bears responsibility for countless deaths, the torture of his opponents, the use of chemical weapons and repression on a horrendous scale. Half a million people have died as a result of his abhorrent actions and this conflict. We all remember the shocking images, day after day, of the barbaric impact of this conflict, and the debates in this House, including the indecision of the west in responding to chemical weapon attacks, which should weigh heavily on our conscience.

While Assad may have sought sanctuary in Russia, we look to the Foreign Secretary to explain what steps will be taken to gather evidence of the crimes his reprehensible regime is responsible for and the actions being taken to bring him to face justice. In view of the situation in Syria, what is the Government’s assessment of the implications for the Syrian resettlement programme? Can he confirm that despite Assad fleeing to Russia to claim asylum, there will be no asylum claims from former members of the Assad regime in this country, many of whom will be associated with human rights abuses?

As the Foreign Secretary said, what happens next is critically important for the civilians of Syria, who have endured so much trauma and tragedy, and for the wider region. Syrians need to be protected by those now controlling territory. That means the protection of all communities, groups and minorities. The House must speak with one voice on that, and some will ask what the UK can do and what we should or should not do. There are no easy answers in the days ahead, but it is profoundly in our national interest that we take whatever action we can, including with our partners, to counter any further instability in Syria.

Like Ministers, I was in the region this weekend discussing the situation with some of our key and crucial partners. Given the large porous borders, violence, insurgency and flow of weapons in the region, can the Foreign Secretary give details of the work being undertaken to strengthen and secure the borders of neighbouring countries? There is a significant risk of a power vacuum in Syria, which could lead to a breakdown of law and order and a proliferation of criminal activities, including the smuggling of weapons and drug production on an industrial scale. Will the Foreign Secretary give an update on the actions being taken to monitor and respond to those criminal activities? Will he also comment on the risk to our security from foreign terrorist fighters being freed from prisons? Will he give his assessment of the risk of the state’s weapons, including potential chemical weapons, falling into the control of those who would cause us harm and threaten our security?

Instability can fuel a rise in extremism, and not only in Syria. There is a risk that ISIS will seek to exploit the present situation; this is also an issue at home. Will the Foreign Secretary inform us whether a cross-Government review of security and defence implications, including terrorism risks, is under way? To what level can he share—I appreciate that he might not be able to do so fully in the House—what discussions are under way with our intelligence partners to counter extremists and security threats from the region?

Hayat Tahrir al-Sham’s historical links to al-Qaeda and their ideology are well known, so they have been proscribed for good reason. Will the Foreign Secretary give a timetable for the reported review of HTS and share the details of the legal mechanism that he will use for that review? Will he give assurances that the Government, with their partners, will be considering the potential threat that HTS pose immediately both to Syria and the region, as well as to our own interests? Security should always be the No. 1 consideration for us all, and we should not forget where this group originally came from. We need to be looking not just at their words but at their actions.

For years, the Assad regime was bailed out by the Russians, the Iranians and Hezbollah, but with Russia now focused on its illegal invasion in Ukraine and with Iran’s presence in the region depleted, will the Foreign Secretary give the Government’s assessment of how this change in Syria will affect the dynamics in the time ahead? What is the strategy for dealing with Iran, which still wants a foothold in Syria to exploit and funnel the misery that we have seen for too long? While we must work towards a better future for Syria, I hope that the Foreign Secretary will agree that the Government must remain alert and prepared for the risks and threats that could still emerge.

[Mr Lammy]

I thank the shadow Foreign Secretary for her remarks. Last week, she was in touch with her concerns about what was taking place, and we were able to correspond. I am grateful for the manner in which we have been able to engage on this very serious issue.

The shadow Foreign Secretary rightly raised the terrible human rights records of Russia and Iran in backing this grim, brutal regime. She is absolutely right that they should be held to account for their actions. She will know that we do not have a diplomatic presence in Syria at this time, and indeed the Syrians do not have a diplomatic presence here in the UK, so recording these actions is not straightforward. However, as she would expect, we continue to work with non-governmental organisations and civil society to support them in their efforts. We will see over the coming days and weeks how they can both record and hold to account those who kept Syria under this brutal regime not just for the last 13 years, but in the years before that under the regime of Assad’s father.

The shadow Foreign Secretary raised Syrian resettlement. Let me say that that is premature. The House has sought on a cross-party basis to support the humanitarian needs of Syrians; indeed, she would have seen that in her previous role in government. We recognise the displacement next door in Lebanon, Jordan, Turkey, Iraq and neighbouring countries, and we will continue to support people in those refugee camps and through the humanitarian aid that we support in-country at this time.

The shadow Foreign Secretary raised the tremendous issues on the ground. We are all rightly concerned about increased terrorism that might engulf the country, which has different sections, communities, minorities and regions—not just HTS, as has been reported in the papers. Against that backdrop, a Cobra has been convened to fully understand these issues across Government. It would not be right to comment on intelligence matters at this time, but she will understand that the Government are active, as she would expect us to be.

The shadow Foreign Secretary is right about the threat not just of terrorism but of illicit drugs. Having just come back from the region, I am sure that she will have heard Gulf allies raise the issue of Captagon and illegal drugs that also propped up Assad’s regime and flooded into Gulf countries. We continue to monitor that. None of us wants Syria to become like Libya next door—fractured and vulnerable to different terrorist groups. We will do all we can. That is why I spoke to the UN envoy yesterday—I will continue to stay in close dialogue with him—and to Jordan, Turkey, the United Arab Emirates and others. The UK will do all it can to support this new representative process that has the people of Syria at its heart. We want the jubilation to continue, and not be replaced by another bloody and brutal regime.

Ukraine

Priti Patel Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd December 2024 Commons Chamber

[Priti Patel (Witham) (Con)]

(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs if he will make a statement on the war in Ukraine.

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

The UK’s support for Ukraine to defend itself against Russian aggression is ironclad. In July this year, the Government committed to provide Ukraine with £3 billion of military aid every year for as long as needed. In October, we announced that the UK Government would provide a further £2.26 billion as the UK’s contribution to the $50 billion G7 loan, earmarked as budgetary support for Ukraine’s military spending. This will be provided in addition to our bilateral military aid. We are also stepping up and speeding up delivery of our military support.

The UK is also leading the way in terms of pressure on Russia and Putin’s war machine. To date, we have sanctioned over 2,100 individuals and entities under the Russia sanctions regime. Sanctions have deprived Russia of over $400 billion since February 2022, equivalent to four more years of funding for the invasion. Putin’s problems are growing, with 700,000 casualties to date, voluntary recruitment down 40% and an unsustainable war economy. Russia has been forced to rely on Iran for missiles and on the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea for foot soldiers.

Our support to Ukraine is a core UK national interest. A Russian victory would diminish the west’s global standing, create a zone of instability on our eastern flank, and embolden Putin and other autocrats. This could require cold war levels of defence spending. On 19 November, we passed a grim milestone—1,000 days since Putin launched his full-scale invasion. Millions of Ukrainians have been displaced from their homes or forced into exile, and as we know from our constituencies, we have homes full of Ukrainian families.

The Prime Minister has made it clear that we need to double down on our support for Ukraine. As the Foreign Secretary told the United Nations Security Council last month, we stand with the people of Ukraine during this terrible period of its history. It is wonderful to have cross-party support for that, and for the support that the UK will deliver for as long as it takes until Ukraine prevails, to ensure that this can never happen again.

[Priti Patel]

Thank you, Mr Speaker, for granting this urgent question. Following the Prime Minister’s comments yesterday, we need some clarity from the Government on their approach to Ukraine. At the Lord Mayor’s banquet, the Prime Minister said that it was important to

“put Ukraine in the strongest possible position for negotiations so that they can secure a just and lasting peace on their terms”.

We can all agree that Ukrainians must be able to determine their own future. I am sure the Minister recognises that the language used by the Prime Minister yesterday evening at the Lord Mayor’s banquet about negotiations is new.

On 21 November in the House, the Prime Minister made no reference to negotiations for peace, stating:

“We have consistently said that we will do what it takes to support Ukraine and put it in the best possible position going into the winter”,

and that

“Russia could roll back its forces and end this war tomorrow.”—[Official Report, 21 November 2024; Vol. 757, c. 373.]

As the Minister pointed out, the Foreign Secretary stated here on 19 November:

“The final truth is that Putin has no interest in a just peace.”—[Official Report, 19 November 2024; Vol. 757, c. 163.]

We all agree that putting Ukraine in the strongest possible position to counter Russia’s illegal invasion is right. We are all proud in this House, across this Government and the previous Government, of how we have led on that support to Ukraine and its people. However, if the Government are framing that through the lens of negotiation, does the Minister believe that that represents a departure from the current approach and from the statements issued in this House?

The Minister will herself have seen President Zelensky’s latest remarks about NATO membership. It is important for NATO to speak with one voice on these matters, and this unity is absolutely crucial, so can the Minister update the House on the Government’s current position on Ukraine acceding to NATO?

We all continue to see more appalling brutality from Putin, with his pummelling of civilians and Ukraine’s energy systems constantly as winter kicks in, which is starting to hurt the people of Ukraine. The misery that that could inflict is the most atrocious form of psychological and physical warfare. The UK has led so much on Ukraine, so can the Minister confirm whether the Government are looking at what more can be done to protect Ukraine’s energy infrastructure? Can she reassure the House that we will keep on doing everything we can do to support the defence of freedom in Ukraine?

[Catherine West]

I reassure the right hon. Lady that there is no change in the UK position. We have always said that we will support Ukraine to achieve a just peace on its own terms. The PM has been clear, including in his speech last night, that

“we must continue to back Ukraine and do what it takes to support…self-defence for as long as it takes”,

because it is for Ukraine to determine its position in any future discussions. Putin cannot be trusted—Russia has violated multiple previous agreements—and the clearest path to peace is for Russia to withdraw its troops from Ukraine tomorrow and respect Ukrainian borders.

On the NATO membership question that the right hon. Lady poses, Ukraine’s place is in NATO. The allies agreed in Washington on 10 July that Ukraine is on an

“irreversible path to full Euro-Atlantic integration, including NATO membership”,

and the UK fully supports that goal.

Bangladesh: Attacks on Hindu Community

Priti Patel Excerpts

Monday 2nd December 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

[Priti Patel (Witham) (Con)]

First of all, I thank the hon. Member for Brent West (Barry Gardiner) for his urgent question on this important subject. He also raised the arrest of the ISKCON leader, and I too am familiar with the place of worship near the hon. Gentleman’s constituency.

There are deep and long-standing ties between our two countries. The Minister visited Bangladesh recently. She is right to point out that, as the hon. Member for Brent West said, the degree of escalation in the violence is deeply, deeply concerning. What we are witnessing now is uncontrolled violence in many quarters. We are watching with horror and shock as further violence spreads in Bangladesh. The thoughts of all of us in the House are with the diaspora community here and those affected in Bangladesh. These are deeply disturbing reports. The Minister also mentioned the deadly attacks and the violence that took place during what is an auspicious period, the Durga Puja festival, in 2021.

Given the current instability in Bangladesh and the departure of the former Prime Minister in August, this is a moment of deep concern. Many Governments are condemning the violence and calling for peace, and law and order to be restored. I welcome the Minister’s comments, but I emphasise that all efforts must now be taken. A religious leader has been arrested and we need to know what is being done, due process in particular, to secure his release.

Will the Minister give details of the Government’s engagement with the Bangladesh Government on that particular matter? What discussions have taken place? Have we been robust in pursuing: the right to protect life; the prevention of violence and persecution; and, importantly, tolerance for religious belief? What efforts have the Government undertaken to build on the previous Government’s work to promote freedom of religion and belief in Bangladesh? Can the Minister say what discussions are taking place with other international partners to help restore the stability we desperately need to see in Bangladesh?

[Catherine West]

The protests following the student-led events in June, July and August were deeply troubling and led to the fall of the Government of Bangladesh. The Opposition spokesperson is quite correct to emphasise the nature of these worrying protests. Our constituents are concerned, which is why my hon. Friend the Member for Brent West brought this important question here today. They include reported cases of retaliatory attacks against allies of the former regime, including the Hindu minority. Some of the attacks are allegedly politically motivated and are of concern. That is why I had it at the top of my agenda when I met Professor Dr Yunus and why the effort was made to set up the policing unit. Our high commission is active—more than any other that I could see when I was there—in guiding, helping and supporting a peaceful transition to a new Government, elections eventually and a harmonious future. Anywhere in the world where freedom of religion or belief is at risk, there we will be standing up for the rights of minority groups.