Middle East

Priti Patel Excerpts

Tuesday 17th March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Priti Patel (Witham) (Con)]

I want to put on the record the thanks of the Opposition to our brave armed forces in the region and to those en route, as well as our thanks to the diplomatic and consular staff for all their efforts to support the quarter of a million British nationals in the region. We also thank our GCC allies for their care in hosting the thousands of British nationals who have returned home via their commercial carriers—Emirates and Etihad Airways—through the air corridor that they secured.

British nationals in the region, our assets and interests, and our allies continue to be on the receiving end of indiscriminate targeting by Iran’s despotic regime. As our friends in the GCC have said, the regime has pursued a nuclear weapon and ballistic missile programme, and sponsors terrorist proxies, whose destabilising activities across the region and interference in domestic affairs of state have threatened us all. The world would be a safer place free from the tyrants of Tehran.

While Iran attacks our military bases, targets British nationals, holds Lindsay and Craig Foreman captive and indiscriminately fires missiles and drones on its neighbours, we cannot stay silent or inactive. The UAE’s Minister of International Co-operation, Her Excellency Reem Al Hashimy, has called Iran’s actions “unhinged”. Our friends in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia have rightly stated that Iran must stop the attacks on economic infrastructure. We have consistently called on the Government to work closely with our friends in the Gulf. We must back our allies in their attempts to safeguard their regional airspace, freedom of navigation and economic and national security. Given the concerns that they have raised in recent weeks, what assurances and confidence did the Foreign Secretary give our friends in the Gulf about the depth and reliability of our support to them? What specific commitments did she make to them about better protecting our bases and allies in the region? The way that our friends and close security partners who host British armed forces have been subjected to outrageous, unprovoked aggression has been painful to watch. Britain cannot stand by while our allies do the heavy lifting to protect us all.

Take Bahrain, for example, with whom we signed the C-SIPA—comprehensive security integration and prosperity agreement—in 2024. I am yet to receive a substantive answer from the Government on how we are mobilising the agreement to better protect our ally and our naval base near Manama. What commitments has the Foreign Secretary given to ensure that British assets would be made available to bolster our allies’ defences? Will minehunter vessels be returning to our base in Bahrain, and will a destroyer, which can take down projectiles, be in the region?

What discussions has the Foreign Secretary had with Israeli Ministers on the Iranian-backed terrorist organisation Hezbollah, whose actions are undermining regional stability and the Lebanese Government and causing terrible hardship for both the Lebanese and Israeli people? Can she advise the House on any actions that the British Government are taking to support practical efforts to see Hezbollah disarmed? What is her assessment of the capacity of the Lebanese armed forces to deal with this threat?

Earlier this month, the Minister for the Middle East summoned Iran’s terrorist representative in London. What was discussed? Will the Foreign Secretary summon him again? Has she held any direct discussions with her Iranian counterpart?

As well as threatening regional security, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps threatens our homeland. It has been designated a terrorist organisation by every corner of the world, including the United States, the European Union, many members of the GCC and our Commonwealth partner, Canada. At this time of war, why does the UK diverge from the rest of the world? What leverage over Iran are the Government exacting for taking the position of not acting? If the Government bring forward legislation to proscribe the IRGC, the Opposition will stand ready to work with them. That also applies to the source of funding of the Iranian regime—what steps is the Foreign Secretary taking with our partners to cut off the financial flows that fund the Iranian regime through the international financial system?

The Foreign Secretary referred to her conversation with Secretary Rubio. Can she confirm that Britain is being kept informed of US actions, both militarily and diplomatically? What kind of agreement on Iran’s nuclear programme would she find acceptable, given the Government’s preference for a negotiated settlement? What is her assessment of the international efforts to reopen the strait of Hormuz? I say that following the Prime Minister’s statement yesterday about a new viable collective plan. What are the details of that plan?

Finally, Iran’s close friend Putin must not profit from this conflict in the middle east. What is the coalition of the willing doing to collapse Putin’s financial flows, make the shadow fleet unviable and stop refineries in India, China and Turkey buying Russian crude oil and funding Putin’s assault on Ukraine? Will the Foreign Secretary also join me in commending our Ukrainian friends for their support of our Gulf allies, when they themselves are under constant attack? This is a consequential moment for the world, and strong and consistent British leadership is required.

[Yvette Cooper]

I thank the shadow Foreign Secretary for her questions; I will take each in turn. Not only are we working immensely closely with our Gulf colleagues and partners, but we are providing them with direct military defensive support, including with our F-35s and Typhoons, which are in operation over the region. We are taking action, including against drones, and providing basing support against the ballistic launchers and missiles that are targeted at the Gulf. We will continue to work closely with those partners, including looking to the future to see how we can support them with the latest anti-drone technology, learning from the experiences of Ukraine.

I have had discussions with the Israeli and Lebanese Governments on Lebanon and the threat from the terrorist group, Lebanese Hezbollah, and the threat from that Iranian-backed organisation is clear. Once again, it has been exposed in recent weeks as doing the bidding of the Iranian regime. Hezbollah does nothing to stand up for the Lebanese people.

On the IRGC, I gently point out to the right hon. Lady that she was Home Secretary for some time and did not introduce the legislation necessary to address some of the wider security issues. However, we continue to fully sanction not just the IRGC, but much more widely across the Iranian system, to keep up the pressure. We do so alongside our allies and alongside the defensive military operations that are in place. Iran cannot be allowed to develop nuclear weapons. That would be a threat not just to the region, but to the world. That is why I, alongside my French and German counterparts, led the work to ensure that we could trigger the snapback response to reintroduce sanctions on the Iranian regime back in October, before this conflict started. We will need to keep our focus on preventing not just the nuclear threat, but the ballistic threat, the proxy threat and the threat to the strait of Hormuz.

The issues around the strait are complex; that is the reality. That is why we need to ensure not only that we are guided by military and commercial expertise, but that planning is in place, drawing together countries across the world because there is international interest in the strait, and that is what we will continue to do.

Finally, I could not agree more with the shadow Foreign Secretary on her point about Russia and Ukraine. Russia and Putin cannot be allowed to benefit from this crisis. We see the long-standing links between Russia and Iran and the threat that both countries pose. Today, as we welcome President Zelensky to London, we continue our steadfast and, I believe, cross-party support for Ukraine. That support must continue, because we know that Ukraine’s security is our security.

Strait of Hormuz

Priti Patel Excerpts

Monday 16th March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Priti Patel (Witham) (Con)]

(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs if she will make a statement on the steps she is taking to secure the reopening of the strait of Hormuz.

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

I thank the shadow Foreign Secretary for her question. I should say that the Foreign Secretary will provide a wider update to the House tomorrow morning on the UK’s approach to the situation in the middle east, including the conflict in Iran, escalation in Lebanon, our consular response and her diplomatic engagement, including her recent visit to Saudi Arabia over the weekend, which will provide the possibility for further questions on a much wider range of issues.

Let me turn to the right hon. Lady’s question. Iran’s reckless actions in the strait of Hormuz are having damaging consequences for the global economy and putting the lives of those aboard civilian vessels in danger. Iran has struck several commercial ships in the last few days, and its actions have put a fifth of the world’s oil supply effectively on hold. A ministerial colleague will shortly update the House on the steps that this Government are taking to provide help to those affected in the UK who most need it.

Last week, we joined 31 other countries and the International Energy Agency in agreeing a co-ordinated release of 400 million barrels of oil, including 13.5 million barrels from the UK, which is the biggest-ever release in the IEA’s history. As the Prime Minister said this morning, we are working with all our allies and partners, including our European partners, on how we can restore freedom of navigation in the region as quickly as possible and ease the economic impacts. That is not a simple task, but we have to reopen the strait of Hormuz to ensure stability in the market.

The Prime Minister spoke with President Trump yesterday on the importance of reopening the strait of Hormuz. The Foreign Secretary was in Riyadh in recent days, showing support for our partners across the region who face continuing strikes. She discussed the impact of Iran’s actions with Gulf Co-operation Council Foreign Ministers and the importance of maintaining energy security and supply. As we speak, she is on a call with Secretary of State Rubio on this very crisis, and the Defence Secretary has just been answering questions on these issues.

I assure you, Mr Speaker, and the whole House that the Government will continue to work towards a swift resolution of the situation in the middle east to protect our people and our allies and to reduce the cost of living for working people in this country.

[Priti Patel]

This is a moment for Britain to stand tall and work intensively with our allies. With the despotic Iranian regime continuing to attack international shipping in the strait of Hormuz, urgent action is required to reopen safe shipping routes, protect lives and support trade and economic stability.

We all feel the economic cost of Iran’s actions. This morning, the Prime Minister told the press, not the House:

“We are working with all our allies…to bring together a viable collective plan that can restore freedom of navigation in the region as quickly as possible.”

I recognise that this is not straightforward, but where is that plan? What measures are being considered? The British public need to know what the Government are doing to protect our economic and national security.

There are currently no destroyers in the middle east. They can operate at a very long range and can take down projectiles, and they can also provide cover for minehunter vessels. When will the Government send one?

Under this Government, there are no minehunters at our naval base in Bahrain—a base designed to host a fleet of minehunters. Are the Government working urgently to bring minehunters back to Bahrain to strengthen capacity and capabilities at that base and in the region?

Are the Government working with our allies to assess the viability of striking targets that threaten international shipping, just as happened against the Houthi targets in Yemen?

What action is being taken to protect critics of the Iranian regime and journalists from acts of transnational repression by the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps?

Will the Government lead a diplomatic effort to ensure that Russia does not profit from this crisis? Will the Minister reaffirm that Britain will continue going further in its actions on Russia and oil refineries fuelling the war?

With our friends in the Gulf being so brazenly under attack from Iran, what assurances did the Foreign Secretary give them during her visit about Britain’s presence in the region and actions to protect our bases? Did she make any progress on increasing the number of British nationals who can return home, bearing in mind the disruption to flights that has taken place today?

This is a hugely consequential moment for the world. Britain cannot stand by and sit on the fence.

[Stephen Doughty]

The right hon. Lady asks very important questions about the safety of British nationals, our allies and others, and about the economic impact. She has also rightly raised the issue of Russia and Ukraine. We cannot allow this situation to in any way become a bonanza for Putin in his war against Ukraine. I can assure her that we are absolutely committed to continuing our economic pressure on Russia. I spoke to my Ukrainian counterpart just last week to reassure him of that.

The Prime Minister has set out very clearly that the strait of Hormuz is vital, both to the international economy and to security. We are in continued conversations with European allies and with the United States. These questions are very complex, and any plans must be multilateral, with as many nations as possible taking part. I am not going to get into detailed discussions in the Chamber, but the Defence Secretary has already spoken about the resources that we prepositioned in the region—the Prime Minister has been clear about that, as have the Foreign Secretary and I. There are capabilities, such as autonomous minehunting, and we have been taking substantial actions to support allies and partners. After the GCC’s meeting with the Foreign Secretary, it set out very clearly that it thanked the UK for our solidarity with the countries in the GCC and our strong and long-standing commitment to their security, stability and territorial integrity. That was in the statement issued by Ministers after they met the Foreign Secretary at the weekend.

We have been very clear about our objectives. The first of those is to protect our people in the region. Secondly, while taking the actions necessary to defend ourselves and our allies, we will not be drawn into the wider war. We will continue working towards a swift resolution that brings security and stability back to the region, but crucially also stops the Iranian threat to its neighbours. We all want to see an end to this war as quickly as possible, because the longer it goes on, the more dangerous the situation becomes and the worse it is for the cost of living back home. That is exactly why the Prime Minister has set out decisive action today.

We are taking measures to support UK citizens who will be affected by energy prices, whether on heating oil—which a ministerial colleague will speak about shortly—the energy price cap, or our continued investment in energy security and capability in the UK. We cannot allow our energy security to be at the whims of the ayatollahs, Vladimir Putin or anyone else. As I have set out, we have acted alongside other countries to release emergency oil stocks at a level that is completely unprecedented, but ultimately we must reopen the strait of Hormuz to ensure stability in the market. That is not a simple task, so I repeat that we will work with allies, including European partners, to bring together a viable and collective plan to restore freedom of navigation.

Consular Assistance

Priti Patel Excerpts

Thursday 5th March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Priti Patel (Witham) (Con)]

I put on record the Opposition’s thanks to officials working to get British nationals home and to our partners in the region for their exceptional support and the assistance they are giving to British nationals who are stuck in Gulf Co-operation Council countries. Iran is a world-leading state sponsor of terrorism. It plots lethal attacks on British soil and has murdered a generation of its own citizens. It poses an intolerable threat from its nuclear programme, ballistic missiles and hostile interference. Now, it is targeting British nationals. It has attacked RAF Akrotiri, putting hundreds of lives at risk, and it is attacking our allies in the region with unprovoked aggression. Britain cannot sit on the fence. Our adversaries must know that we will not stand back when our allies are under such attack.

I pay tribute to our incredible armed forces on British bases; their families are in our thoughts. Hundreds of thousands of British nationals are stuck in the region. Following the failed repatriation flight last night, they want to know what the Government are doing to bring them back home. They are trapped in the region, and getting them back is an enormous exercise. Ministers must be honest about all their actions. How many British nationals do the Government have the capacity to repatriate through charter flights?

Our Gulf friends have negotiated an air corridor, which both Emirates and Etihad Airways are maximising to repatriate foreign nationals. What plans are in place to secure the use of airspace to facilitate flights for our nationals? What are the Government doing to try to protect British nationals in the region, including Craig and Lindsay Foreman who are detained in Iran? Was that case raised when the murderous Iranian terror regime’s representative in London was eventually summoned yesterday? Given Iran’s actions, why was he not expelled?

The fallout from the conflict requires Britain to stand up for our country and for our national interests. If ever there was a time for UK leadership, it is now. That leads me to ask, why is the Foreign Secretary not here today? She should be here giving the statement. Instead, we see reports of the Prime Minister being forced by his Cabinet into sitting on the fence—including by Britain’s weak and feeble Foreign Secretary. She has failed in her duty to stand up for Britain’s place in the world, failed to work with our allies to promote our national interests in the region, and failed to provide the leadership needed to protect our military personnel, our bases and British nationals.

Where is Britain in the region? What do the provisions of the comprehensive security integration and prosperity agreement with Bahrain mean for the response to this situation? It was meant to build long-term security and stability across the middle east.

Why was Britain so woefully unprepared? Ten days ago, the Foreign Secretary was in Washington claiming to have held successful meetings with her counterpart. What was her response when Iran was discussed? Did she just wave the white flag of surrender and tell her Department not to engage with the United States as it made these plans, and on the action that followed?

Britain’s allies are raging against the UK’s feebleness. Bahrain, the UAE and Cyprus, as well as the United States, are reported to be angered and disappointed by this Labour Government’s shameful weakness to stand up to aggressors. Within hours of the attack on Cyprus, Greece sent two frigates and four F-16 planes, while Britain is still working out when HMS Dragon will depart the UK. The situation is shameful and embarrassing. Never in the history of this great nation have a Government been so feeble at a time when our people and our allies are under assault. This is no time to sit on the sidelines as the Iranian regime and its proxies target everyone.

When will the Government get British nationals home? What will be done to strengthen our defences in the region and work with our allies? What are the Government doing with our allies to neutralise the regime’s tools of repression? When will Ministers act over the regime’s illegal funding source? The fact is that senior figures in that despotic regime have been parking their wealth and assets in London while repressing their own people. When will Ministers ensure that the UK’s financial system and institutions are not facilitating and hosting funds? By the way, I say to Ministers that I have repeatedly asked these questions before.

Finally, when will the Government ban the murderous revolutionary guards and bring forward the emergency legislation that we are all calling for? This is not a time for Britain to be silent. Britain must work with our allies to defend our national security and confront this vile and despotic regime with strength and resolve.

[Mr Falconer]

I remind the House that there are 300,000 British nationals in the region. As the House will be aware, I have been in many crises that have affected British nationals overseas; the House will know that this is a very significant one. I confirm to the House, and particularly to those on the Opposition Benches given the language they have chosen to use in the past 24 hours—both personally about the Foreign Secretary, as the shadow Foreign Secretary just did, and as the Leader of the Opposition did about “orcs and goons” yesterday—that the Ministers of this country have been in the Foreign Office crisis centre since Saturday. I will not reflect on my time as an official in previous crises, when the same was not said about Foreign Ministers during such times.

I want to be clear for British nationals in the region—

Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office

Priti Patel Excerpts

Wednesday 4th March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Priti Patel (Witham) (Con)]

We have had a wide-ranging debate. I will not touch on all the areas mentioned, but I will add a few others. While the debate focuses on budgets and all the other issues around the FCDO’s work, its people and the reforms, it is overshadowed by ongoing events in the middle east. With British nationals in the region sheltering, fearful for their safety while Iran is indiscriminately firing missiles and drones, perhaps this is an opportunity for the Minister to say a few words about the steps being taken to support British nationals in the region. As we know, our bases are being fired on by the Iranians, and British nationals are in fear for their lives.

I know that everyone in the FCDO is working hard to protect Britain’s interests in the region and the safety and security of our bases against the Iranian threat. In the light of the fact that our nationals and bases are under threat, when will the Foreign Secretary call in the Iranian terrorist regime’s spokesperson in London? Frankly, this is a very difficult and worrying time.

As the debate covers FCDO resources, the Prime Minister said on Sunday that our allies in the Gulf had asked the British Government to do more to defend them. Is that happening now to the extent that it genuinely can? Is there an issue with resources and deployments? Perhaps the Minister might be able to update the House on whether the Government have taking any action at all to support and protect international shipping, particularly during this difficult time when we have significant defence expertise in the region. We all pay a big tribute to our armed forces, who are doing so much for our service personnel and their families in the region. At times like these, the expertise of officials and diplomats is essential, and we pay tribute to and thank them.

We know that the FCDO has undertaken a programme of efficiency savings—that has been touched on—and that there is some upheaval in the Department. The Conservative party is supportive of the principle of finding efficiencies and streamlining in government—there is no question of that—but it is important that that is done in the right way and that we do not lose expertise and capabilities. We cannot lose them in the diplomatic service—I use that phrase deliberately—because they are a vital asset to our country and to our national interests. We have invested in their training, skills and capability, and they are literally on the frontline around the world battling for our national interests. I would welcome the Minister giving an update on the impacts of some of the upcoming changes.

One area where the FCDO has been spending money, and on which Opposition Members, including me, have been asking questions—written questions and letters to the Department—is with regards to the disgraced former ambassador to the United States, Peter Mandelson, and his payouts and expenses. I have received some non-answers to written parliamentary questions. In the light of the investigations taking place, I appreciate that some of what my questions asked about may be sensitive, but hard-pressed taxpayers deserve the right to know the financial cost of the Prime Minister’s terrible judgment in making that appointment. There is not only that appalling financial cost, but the impact on our incredible team in Washington. Given the outstanding team in our mission there, working so hard with regards to our special relationship, to appoint the Prime Minister’s crony to that role is unforgivable.

One of the biggest costs to British taxpayers could be the result of another foreign policy failure: Labour’s Chagos surrender deal. The Prime Minister told a press conference last year that the costs were just £3.4 billion, claiming that was

“how the OBR counts the cost”.

However, the Office for Budget Responsibility confirmed in a letter to me that it

“does not hold any information on the costs or financial impacts of the specific treaty over the future sovereignty of the Chagos Archipelago”

and that it has not

“undertaken any modelling of these costs.”

We should not be surprised by that misinformation.

The Prime Minister has said a lot about the deal—he also stated that China, Russia and Iran oppose the deal, when in fact they back Mauritius—but the fact is that the Opposition had to drag out the information about the forecast costs, which will be £35 billion. That is taxpayers’ money, so Ministers should provide full clarity. If the Minister cannot do that today, the House is owed a written explanation in the light of what the OBR said. We want Ministers to be transparent—it is public money, at the end of the day—including under which budget lines in the FCDO budget the costs of the Chagos surrender will come.

The Attorney General of Mauritius is complaining that Mauritius has not yet received any of the money it was expecting from the British Government—some 10 billion Mauritian rupees, or 4% of its revenues. Clearly this money has to be accounted for from the FCDO’s or the Government’s budgets, so can the Minister tell us what further sums of money are being paid to Mauritius under the strategic partnership signed alongside the treaty last year, and other schemes?

The Mauritian Government are also expecting a further 86 million Mauritian rupees in support from the UK Government in their current financial year. That is in their country’s budget, so can the Minister disclose when this is being accounted for? British taxpayers deserve to know what is happening to this money. Can the Minister also give details of what the £135,000 of funding referenced on page 99 of the supplementary estimates is for? It is in section K. I do not need to go into the full details; I am sure the Minister’s officials will get that information for him.

Of course, one way to deal with all of this, and to save British taxpayers a lot of money, is to tear up this terrible surrender treaty. That money could go to many of the areas that hon. Friends and colleagues have discussed this afternoon. Could the Minister also provide some clarity as to when the Bill is coming back? I noticed that the Minister for the Middle East got himself into a bit of difficulty last week, and I think clarity would be welcome.

The whole House should also be concerned about the actions of the Chinese Communist party. The FCDO plays a key role in this relationship. In the last few weeks the Prime Minister has visited China and the Foreign Secretary has met Wang Yi in Munich, yet there is very little to show for this relationship so far. We must bear in mind what the CCP is doing and the harm it is causing by jailing Jimmy Lai for 20 years, which is political persecution, by putting bounties of the heads of Hongkongers living in our country, and by spying on our own country and democratic institutions.

We heard only moments ago the Security Minister’s statement that three people were arrested today under counter-terrorism legislation. I introduced the National Security Bill in Parliament back in 2022, and I think it is fair to say that every single Member in this House is deeply concerned about what is going on. This does not stand our country in good stead. It damages our reputation in the world. I am going to say it again: it is time that the FCDO and the Government played an important role by placing China on the enhanced tier of FIRS. We must be robust in defending our national interests.

My hon. Friend the Member for Chester South and Eddisbury (Aphra Brandreth) spoke earlier about education and the Palestinian Authority. While the situation in Israel, Gaza and the west bank continues to cause a great deal of concern, the 20-point peace plan is now out there and in my view the UK needs to use its influence to support it. We need to see progress on the dismantling of Hamas, and we need to see aid getting to where it needs to get to. The FCDO plays an important role in that.

We also need to see progress on reforming the Palestinian Authority, as has been pointed out today. When it comes to questions around education, we have heard some very robust comments today. The Minister for the Middle East referred to an audit taking place on “pay to slay” and reviews of the education curriculum, which is deeply worrying. We need assurances from the Government immediately that they are being robust around the £101 million of British taxpayers’ money that was given to the Palestinian Authority last year and that that money is not going into supporting those appalling practices. The one-year anniversary of the memorandum of understanding is coming up next month. There should be some transparency on this, and I welcome the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Chester South and Eddisbury.

Many hon. Members have referenced aid, ODA and the budget this afternoon. It is right that the funding has been repurposed to support our defence and security, given the threats that we face. Our contributions make a difference, and it is vital that the Government continue to explain the projects they are prioritising, to make sure that the money is followed, tracked and traced and that all outcomes are working for our national interests. We must ensure that every single penny counts and that there is transparency and removal of waste in spending.

There has not been enough discussion about the role of private sector finance and the multilateral development banks, about where the FCDO sits on that and about what is happening to our money in those institutions. That matter is absolutely vital, but there is very little scrutiny in this House. The Minister who holds this portfolio fully may be in the other House, but these issues should be scrutinised here. At the end of the day, this is public money.

While there are many areas of conflict in the world, the UK continues to make a difference, and the whole House should recognise that. We have heard colleagues speak about the brutality of the war in Sudan—it is absolutely appalling, and much has been said in the House on that. In Afghanistan, basic human rights are being denied. Women’s basic freedoms are being suppressed, and those rights have to be restored.

On Syria, perhaps the Minister could add something about where our resources are going with regard to the transitional Government and the Syrian Democratic Forces. What are we putting in, and what is happening on stability and bringing peace there? There is still a lack of accountability around the destruction of chemical weapons, the state’s ability to deal with ISIS, which we deal with in this country through the Ministry of Defence, and the strikes that are essential to reduce ISIS. On reports that Syria has been deploying troops on its border with Lebanon in recent days, does the Minister agree that Hezbollah must not be able to draw on arms smuggled across the border? On the Government’s decision to lift a wave of Syria sanctions, has any work been undertaken to measure the impact to ensure that bad actors are not facilitated and do not profit? All those issues affect us and the FCDO in many of its roles and responsibilities.

I want to quickly make a couple of other points. We have all marked the fourth anniversary of Putin’s awful full-scale invasion of Ukraine. The House is united on Ukraine, but the Minister’s Department has an important role to play with the MOD in ensuring that resources get into Ukraine and that we support Ukraine. Also, when it comes to going after Russia and its financial flows—this is about both sanctions and the shadow fleet—we need to ensure that oil finances in particular are being tackled. Sanction busting must stop, and Britain has a role to play there.

Finally, it is absolutely right that Britain stands tall in the world, and the FCDO is pivotal in that. Whether it is soft power or hard power or our diplomats around the world, how we project our country’s power and influence is vital to securing our interests both at home and abroad, and protecting British nationals overseas and keeping our country safe from threats is what the Foreign Office leads on and does well in. There is still much more to do, and I look forward to hearing the Minister’s responses to my questions.

Oral Answers to Questions

Priti Patel Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Foreign Secretary.

[Priti Patel (Witham) (Con)]

Last month, the Foreign Secretary held an unpublicised meeting in Munich with Wang Yi, which we only know about because the Chinese Communist party boasted that the Foreign Secretary told the party that the Prime Minister’s visit to China was

“a complete success with fruitful results”

for UK-China relations. Can the Minister, on behalf of the Foreign Secretary, confirm whether or not the human rights of those living in Hong Kong were raised at the meeting? With Jimmy Lai languishing in prison, the CCP looking to toughen up the Hong Kong national security law, and Hongkongers living in Britain with bounties on their heads, on what basis was the Prime Minister’s visit a complete success? Given how little the UK got, it was a complete failure, wasn’t it?

[Seema Malhotra]

My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary had many meetings with counterparts on very important issues of national and international security in Munich, and raised a number of issues, including Jimmy Lai. The Conservatives were in charge for 14 years, and they had almost as many different policies on China during that time. They talked about state threats, but delayed the essential reform of our outdated security laws. In May 2021, the shadow Foreign Secretary launched her consultation on the new legislation, but it took more than two years to get the National Security Act 2023 passed into law, leaving our country without the powers needed to prosecute such cases.

[Priti Patel]

Clearly, the Minister is desperate, and is having to go backwards, rather than moving forwards to address the situation. For her information, China oppresses Hongkongers, refuses to free Jimmy Lai and supports Russia and Iran in their barbaric actions to undermine freedom and democracy. Those are issues that the Government should take a grip of now. China plots, spies and undermines our security. Rather than kowtowing to China, when will her Government wake up, deal with the threat posed by the CCP, and put China on the enhanced tier of the foreign influence registration scheme? When will she start taking action and expel CCP diplomats, to show our disgust at their appalling actions when it comes to transnational repression?

[Seema Malhotra]

The Government have not yet made any decision about whether China will be added to the enhanced tier, but the right hon. Lady will know that we condemn in the strongest terms the politically motivated prosecution of British citizen Jimmy Lai. This issue remains a priority for this Government, and she is fully aware of that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Foreign Secretary.

[Priti Patel (Witham) (Con)]

The Government’s indecision on how to deal with Iran has left the UK weaker and has undermined our own security, but, as the House has already started to discuss, proscribing the IRGC will strengthen our position. I proscribed Hamas when I was Home Secretary, so I have dealt with state proscriptions.

Last year, in her role as Home Secretary, the Foreign Secretary spoke about bringing forward the Hall review and recommendations, and about introducing a series of powers. Let me make a suggestion. When will the Foreign Secretary and her Government provide the parliamentary time that is essential if we are to have emergency legislation to proscribe the IRGC? If she desperately needs parliamentary time that has not been timetabled so far, will she scrap the Chagos surrender Bill so we can legislate to do that now?

[Yvette Cooper]

Again, I point out that we have had a record number of former Home Office Ministers—both Conservatives and former Conservatives—coming forward to call for things that they failed to do while they were in government. I say to the right hon. Lady that this Government are determined to introduce legislation to take forward the Jonathan Hall review, but it is legislation that the Conservative Government could have delivered over their very many years in office. We will also strengthen the action on the Iranian threat on our streets and internationally.

[Priti Patel]

Events in the middle east remind us how important to our collective defence and security the Diego Garcia base and the whole of the Chagos archipelago are, and nothing should be done to undermine that. Given the latest comments from the President of the United States on the importance of the base and on the folly of giving sovereignty away, will the Foreign Secretary finally do what is right for the defence of our country, British taxpayers and British Chagossians and tear up Labour’s terrible Chagos surrender treaty?

[Yvette Cooper]

I say to the shadow Foreign Secretary that this Government believe that decisions should be made in the UK’s national interest and according to UK values, not according to any other Government’s national interest, whether in Europe, the US, the middle east or beyond. We will take decisions on the Chagos islands in the interests of our national security. She knows the national security issues that are at stake here. Instead of simply travelling round the world trying to undermine the UK’s national security and the decisions that we are taking, perhaps she should start standing up for the UK’s national interest.

Jimmy Lai: Prison Sentence

Priti Patel Excerpts

Monday 9th February 2026 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Foreign Secretary.

[Priti Patel (Witham) (Con)]

I commend my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) for securing this important urgent question. Today Jimmy Lai, and the democracy and freedom that he has campaigned for in Hong Kong, has been sentenced to 20 years. As his son Sebastien has said, Jimmy

“dedicated his life to defending the freedoms of Hong Kong. For that heroism, he’s being punished; he’s essentially getting a death sentence for that.”

Jimmy is a hero and deserves to be back home with his family, not hauled in chains before the courts and languishing in a prison cell. We call for his release. The fact that Jimmy Lai has been sentenced to 20 years—the longest sentence ever under the national security law—is not only a reflection of the cruelty inflicted by the Chinese Communist party, but it is a monumental diplomatic failure of this feeble and gullible Prime Minister. Just over a week ago, he was with President Xi defending engagement with the CCP. He gave China permission for its super-embassy spy hub, but failed to secure Jimmy’s release. Will the Minister now have some backbone and tell us exactly what details were discussed between the Prime Minister and Xi? Did the Prime Minister call for Jimmy to come back home, or demand that he gets access to the healthcare he needs?

The official readout of the meeting published on the Downing Street website did not even mention Jimmy Lai’s name. We need answers, Mr Speaker. Jimmy’s family, and the whole country, want to know when this weak and pathetic Labour Government will finally stand up to China and show some backbone. Will the Foreign Secretary actually do something, such as summon the Chinese ambassador and prepare a list of diplomats to expel in response to China’s refusal to free Jimmy Lai? Will the Government revoke the planning permission granted for the super-embassy spy hub, and will China now be placed on the enhanced tier of the foreign influence registration scheme at long last? With the UK holding the presidency of the UN Security Council, what diplomatic steps will be taken to escalate this case, put some pressure on China for once, and secure global support for Jimmy’s release? Jimmy must be freed now, and this is a day of shame for this weak Labour Government and their failure to stand up to China.

[Seema Malhotra]

I thank the shadow Foreign Secretary for her comments. She will know that this situation has been ongoing since before we were in government, and that we continue to seek the release of Jimmy Lai immediately. We assess Jimmy Lai’s prosecution to be politically motivated, but in order to have a conversation with the Chinese Government, we need to be in the same room. That is why the Prime Minister raised the matter during his visit, and we continue to raise it at every level of Government and at every opportunity.

The right hon. Lady will know that on the instruction of the Foreign Secretary, the British Consul General attended the sentencing, and that we continue to keep in regular touch with the family. We continue to do all that we can, publicly and privately, to secure the release of Jimmy Lai, and we will continue to do so.

Sudan

Priti Patel Excerpts

Thursday 5th February 2026 Commons Chamber

[Priti Patel (Witham) (Con)]

The situation in Sudan is serious and deadly, and Members across the Chamber want this awful, barbaric war to end. Millions are suffering, displaced and malnourished, and an estimated 150,000 people have been killed, including in massacres such as El Fasher. War crimes are being committed, and appalling acts of sexual violence are being perpetrated against women and girls. UK leadership is needed to make a difference to the humanitarian situation on the ground, and to support every international diplomatic effort to end this awful and deadly conflict.

I must ask the Foreign Secretary, however, how she can come to the House to talk about such barbaric sexual violence against women and girls, when the Prime Minister knowingly let his friend, Peter Mandelson, a friend of one of the world’s most notorious paedophiles, into the heart of Government and her Department. Is she not ashamed and concerned that our country’s credibility and record on this issue has been damaged because of the Government’s poor judgment, and the Prime Minister’s judgment in appointing Mandelson, knowing his links to Epstein? With Mandelson putting his interests first, has she assessed the damage that his actions have caused to the UK’s international and reputational interests, including our essential work to address the situation in Sudan? To her knowledge, did he at any stage mislead our US ally on national security and foreign affairs on key decisions such as Chagos, which impact our security partnership? This morning I am sure the Foreign Secretary will have seen reports that Secretary Rubio warned the Labour Government over the appointment of Lord Mandelson. Can she confirm whether she or her predecessor were aware of that? The UK’s credibility has been damaged by the Prime Minister and her Government’s appalling judgment. That is why answers are needed.

This week, the UK assumed the presidency of the UN Security Council. Will the Foreign Secretary tell the House how we will use that position rightly to advance efforts to negotiate to end this conflict? US-led peace efforts are reportedly building momentum, with a text being prepared of a plan to try to stop the fighting. Has she seen and inputted into that text, and what are her views on it? Has she set parameters to decide whether the proposals are the right ones, and has she spoken to other Sudan Quad countries about it? If acceptable, what pressures will be put on the warring parties to agree it? What is her assessment of any progress made since the statement at last April’s Sudan conference in London, and who will participate in the conference in Germany?

We welcome the new sanctions of the RSF and the SAF, but can we expect further action against the leaders of those barbaric groups, their key operators and enforcers, who were all responsible for administering vile brutality on innocent people in different parts of the country? We all back the sanctions announced in December, but we need stronger action with robust consequences that deter the entities, individuals and businesses whose support continues to sustain this awful war.

Will the Foreign Secretary update the House on how the UK is using international courts to pursue those responsible for these atrocities being committed, and to gather evidence? We note the £20 million of humanitarian funding announced by the Government for women and girls, so will she confirm whether that is drawn from money already pledged, or whether it is additional new funding? Which organisations are providing the programmes funded by that money, and what are the mechanisms for how the support service will work?

As well as supporting women and girls affected by sexual violence and the stigma attached to children born from rape, is the Foreign Secretary working to help male victims, where there is also stigma that prevents them coming forward? More broadly, can she update us on the volume of British aid that has managed to get over the border since the escalation of this awful conflict towards the end of last year? What information has she received about what aid is getting through, and whether it is getting into the right hands?

The war in Sudan is a stain on the world’s conscience, and Britain must exert every ounce of its influence and leverage to get the warring parties to lay down their weapons immediately and to secure a lasting peace.

[Yvette Cooper]

I welcome the shadow Foreign Secretary’s words on Sudan. It is the worst humanitarian crisis in the 21st century, and the whole House should be united in wanting it to end. She asked about the work being done through the Quad, and the work led by the US. I am in close contact with the US special envoy, Massad Boulos, and I am keeping in close contact with Secretary Rubio on this issue. I have also been involved in discussions with the UAE, Egypt and Saudi Arabia. A lot of work is being pursued by the Quad, but, linked to that, the UK and Norway are also pursuing further work, particularly to build civilian capacity. We all want this to move towards a civilian political transition, but we need to build up the capacity of Sudanese civilians, who have faced the most horrendous devastation and had to flee their homes as a result of this conflict, and they need support as well.

As I said in my statement, we believe that this has to be an international effort, in the same way as in the run-up to the Gaza ceasefire, where there was work by the Arab League to say that Hamas should play no role, work by the UK, France and other countries to recognise the state of Palestine, and work by different countries to put forward potential reform plans during the summer, all of which was ultimately drawn upon in the 20-point plan put together by President Trump last year. We need the same intensity in relation to Sudan, with the same level of international engagement. That is what I want to see, and it is why I spoke to so many African Foreign Ministers in neighbouring countries this week. It is why I have been speaking to the African Union, and why I will be raising the issue not just at the UN Security Council when we hold the Chair this month, but at the Munich security conference, and as part of the Berlin conference. It is crucial that we keep that focus and energy in relation to Sudan. The £20 million announced this week is new money that will be used, in particular, for the survivors of sexual violence.

The right hon. Lady mentioned Peter Mandelson. As the House will know, I withdrew Peter Mandelson from his role as ambassador to the United States less than a week after I was appointed as Foreign Secretary. I am clear that his actions are completely unforgiveable. Given that at the heart of what Epstein did was the grave abuse and trafficking of women and girls, this is particularly disturbing. I will say something else: I was Chief Secretary to the Treasury at the height of the financial crisis, when everybody was busting a gut to rescue the savings and livelihoods of ordinary people across this country, so the idea that a senior and experienced Cabinet Minister, working alongside us, could instead be behaving the way we have seen is truly shocking. It is right that a police investigation is under way.

Iran

Priti Patel Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd February 2026 Commons Chamber

[Priti Patel (Witham) (Con)]

(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for the Foreign, Development and Commonwealth Office if she will make a statement regarding the situation on Iran.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Mr Hamish Falconer)]

Iran’s horrific attacks on protesters have shocked the world. In recent days, the scale of the violence and brutality has become clearer. Reports suggest that many thousands of people across Iran have been killed, and many more arrested, in what has been a brutal and bloody repression against those exercising their right to public protest. There has been a range of estimates for casualties and detentions. However, the internet blackout imposed by the authorities, which we have also condemned and which has only recently started to relax, makes it impossible at the moment to reach a reliable figure. As one young Iranian woman chillingly told the BBC:

“We all know someone who was killed”.

What is clear from the reports is the scale of the killing, the brutality of the crackdown and the bravery of the protesters. As the Foreign Secretary has said, the Iranian people have shown extreme courage in the face of brutality and repression.

We condemn these horrific attacks on those exercising the right to peaceful protest in the strongest possible terms. This Government committed to the House that we would hold the Iranian authorities accountable, and that is exactly what we are doing. Yesterday, we announced a sweeping package of sanctions against the Iranian authorities for a number of serious human rights violations; this includes the designations of the Minister of the Interior, police chiefs and prolific Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps members for their role in the recent brutality against protesters. We continue to work with our international partners to tackle the threat posed by Iran and to hold the Iranian regime to account by a range of means. Most recently, we led the call for a special session of the Human Rights Council on 23 January. We are pleased that the council has voted to extend the independent fact-finding mission to collect the evidence of the authorities’ human rights violations, and we will continue to support those efforts.

We continue to monitor developments closely and will not cease in our demands to Iran to protect fundamental freedoms, including access to information and communications. We are also continuing to take robust action to protect UK interests from Iranian state threats. Those threats are unacceptable. They must and will be defended against at every turn. We will continue to work with our allies and partners to improve regional stability and prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon. The UK will continue to challenge the actions of the Iranian regime and we stand proudly on the side of freedom and human rights.

[Priti Patel]

The brutal crackdown on brave Iranians fighting for their basic rights and freedoms continues. The reports are shocking. We have now seen that tens of thousands have been killed and hundreds of thousands injured. Some are even saying that 30,000 people have died. These are warlike casualty rates, yet the condemnation and response are weak. What are the British Government doing, with our allies, to neutralise the regime’s tools of repression? The Government have announced new sanctions—the Minister has spoken about that—but what is being done to crack down on the sanctions evasion that is fuelling the Iranian regime’s repression, including in oil sales and cryptocurrency usage? What steps are being taken to weaken the regime’s terrorist proxies? Are the Government tracking the regime’s illegal funding sources to ensure that UK financial systems and institutions are not facilitating or hosting funds that are being used to target Iranian citizens in Britain with hostile attacks?

The EU has chosen to proscribe the IRGC. What is the Government’s response? The Jonathan Hall review concluded nearly nine months ago, so when will emergency and essential measures to take action against the IRGC come to Parliament? We cannot wait, and the Conservatives will support emergency legislation. The build-up of US naval and air force assets in the middle east has been well documented and reported, and it has prompted some reported contacts between the US and Iran. Will the Minister say what discussions have been held with the US Government about their intentions? Is the UK involved in any contacts between the US and Iran? What plans is the Minister making for British assets and the protection of personnel and British nationals in the region should the US decide to strike? Is there a scenario in which the UK might be involved in potential action? How will Ministers ensure that they are at the table, and what planning and co-operation are under way to assess any commercial disruption within the region should action materialise?

This is not the time to be silent. Britain must stand up for the Iranian people and confront this vile, despotic regime with strength and resolve.

[Mr Falconer]

I am grateful to the right hon. Lady for her questions; I will respond to them in turn. We have taken a series of steps to ensure that anyone in this country wishing to support the Iranian Government must meet a much higher threshold to do so. We have introduced 550 sanctions, including some introduced by the last Government and some that we have built on. I will come to the sanctions we announced yesterday in due course.

Let me turn to the foreign influence registration scheme. We have now put Iran at the very top tier, which means additional reporting requirements for those who would seek to act here. That provides new options to our services and our police force should those seeking to act for Iran attempt to do so in the UK. This House has heard from me, and the right hon. Lady knows from her time as Home Secretary, about the extent of the threat that Iran poses to the UK. I reassure the House that we continue to treat that threat with the utmost seriousness that it requires, and we believe that the legislative steps we have taken on FIRS, the increase in sanctions and implementation of the Hall review will all further increase our defences against such action.

The right hon. Lady asks about discussions in recent days. We have been in regular discussion with all our regional partners. I am sure she will be aware of commentary over the last few days about further conversations between the Iranians and the United States. I do not wish from the Dispatch Box to get ahead of the direct participants but, as she would expect, we are in regular discussion with all those with an interest. As I said in my initial response to her urgent question, we want Iran to have no prospect of achieving a nuclear weapon. A diplomatic process to that effect is necessary, and we support all efforts by the United States and our other partners to assure that.

The right hon. Lady asks about our plans regarding assets and what scenarios may entail. She will appreciate why I will not be drawn into speculation in any great detail. These are clearly very delicate moments for Iran; as she rightly says, there has been very widespread loss of life on the streets of Iran. I will also take this opportunity to say that I know that for many British Iranians, there is great anguish about the lack of contact they have been able to have with their families in Iran. I feel that most acutely for British people still detained by the Iranian regime, but it is obviously an experience felt widely across the country. The British-Iranian community make an important contribution to this country, and I understand the anguish they feel over these recent days.

British Indian Ocean Territory

Priti Patel Excerpts

Wednesday 28th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Priti Patel (Witham) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House is opposed to the United Kingdom ceding sovereignty over the British Indian Ocean Territory; believes that the United Kingdom should not give £34.7 billion to Mauritius when that money could be spent on the armed forces; further believes that the Diego Garcia British Military Base and Indian Ocean Territory Bill breaches the Exchange of notes constituting an agreement concerning the availability for defence purposes of the British Indian Ocean Territory, London, 30 December 1966 with the United States, as does the UK/Mauritius: Agreement concerning the Chagos Archipelago including Diego Garcia, and therefore that the Government should not proceed with the Bill; and also believes that Parliament must approve any changes to the 1966 Exchange of notes through the process set out under the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010.

Labour’s £35 billion Chagos surrender deal is falling apart every single day. It is high time that the Prime Minister tore up this atrocious surrender treaty and put Britain’s interests, security, and hard-pressed taxpayers first. The Opposition have made that clear from day one, and have taken every opportunity to expose the deceit, falsehoods and foolishness of the approach taken by Labour. Whether it is on arguments of international law, defence and security, self-determination, the importance of the Chagossian people standing up for their rights, or the environment, it is the Conservatives who have been standing up for Britain’s national interests by unequivocally opposing this surrender treaty.

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

Building on what my right hon. Friend is saying, is she not shocked that most Labour MPs cannot be bothered to turn up for this debate?

[Priti Patel]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right, and I think it demonstrates their disdain and contempt for the British people, quite frankly. It is pretty obvious that as the Prime Minister and various other Ministers travel the globe, they go around waving the white flag of surrender. [Interruption.] Government Members can sit there chuntering, but the British public can see exactly what is going on with them: they are weak, feeble and giving away the public’s money.

Had the Prime Minister—[Interruption.] The Minister is chuntering about the start of the negotiations, but this deal is on him, the Labour Government, their lefty friends and their international law agreements. [Interruption.] Perhaps the Minister would like to listen; he might learn a few things today. Had the Prime Minister and his dear friend the Attorney General—[Interruption.] Perhaps the hon. Member would like to contribute to the debate, and will put her name down to speak. If not, I suggest that she sits and listens.

Had the Prime Minister, the Attorney General, and the real Foreign Secretary, Jonathan Powell—along with those who are or were Foreign Secretary in name only—got their way, the Mauritian flag would already be flying over the Chagos archipelago, and hundreds of millions of £35 billion of taxpayers’ money would already be lining the coffers of a foreign Government.

[Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)]

I invite my right hon. Friend to challenge the Minister to deal with the issue of the treaty of Pelindaba, which I think came into force in 2009. It was designed to prevent African nuclear proliferation. If we breach that treaty by means of this deal, it would open up an opportunity for all kinds of hostile powers, including China, to site nuclear weapons in Africa. Do the Government realise that? I know that my right hon. Friend certainly does.

[Priti Patel]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. Again, it is the Opposition who have been raising the issue that this deal gives succour and strength to Britain’s enemies. All the people who are working against us—China, Russia and Iran—will accelerate their plotting with their Mauritian friends on how to undermine the operationalisation of the military base on Diego Garcia, and on how to exert their influence in the Indo-Pacific at the expense of all our interests.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the shadow Secretary of State and the Conservatives for their consistent focus on this issue. Does the shadow Secretary of State share my concerns about the long-term guarantee for the UK, the right to extend the military lease, and the right of access under the treaty? This essential base can never have any ambiguity attached to it.

[Priti Patel]

The hon. Member is absolutely right, and he speaks to my fundamental point about capitulation, surrender and the way that the Government have worked against Britain’s interests. We see that night and day, and it is unforgiveable.

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

My right hon. Friend is making an excellent start to this attack on the Government, but I will ask her a simple question. Should we not also dig a little deeper on the links between the Prime Minister and some of his earlier colleagues? That way, we would learn that Phillipe Sands, who was representing the Mauritian Government, had a deal done with the Russians over Crimea, in which he assured them, I understand, that the granting of independence and ownership for Mauritius would not impinge on their right to stay in Crimea. That was what brought their vote, and their support for this deal. Does that not look to my right hon. Friend as though it was absolute method traitorship?

[Priti Patel]

My right hon. Friend has made his point very clearly. This Government are not standing up for our values or interests. Nor are they making any effort to demonstrate that they are on the side of our national security. Fundamentally, that is what this debate is all about.

It is diligent work and scrutiny by Conservatives in this House and the other place that has led to the Government being forced to pause this surrender. That has been achieved by our diligent diplomatic engagement with the US Administration, by asking for over 400 parliamentary debates, by securing two Opposition day debates, and thanks to you Mr Speaker, by asking urgent question after urgent question. We are here to demand answers that they never provide, but only hide, all thanks to their shameful outright contempt for Parliament and the British public.

The Opposition have proudly made representations on behalf of the Chagossian people, who have not only been betrayed but are being threatened in Britain. Their families are being intimidated by people associated with the Government of Mauritius, who seem to be learning how to conduct transnational repression from their friends in the Chinese Communist party. This Labour Government will go down in history for many terrible things, but they can now add to that list of shame the repression and betrayal of the Chagossian people. Labour must rethink its deeply corrosive policy, which is putting at risk our security and the safety of the Chagossian people. Instead, we have a weak and feeble Prime Minister, currently on his knees in Beijing, who will do anything possible to push through this deal—a deal that has been constructed and negotiated by his left-wing international lawyer friends, whose views he seems to value much more than the British people and the Chagossian community.

We all know how this has gone completely wrong, although the Prime Minister could still take a different course. It has gone wrong because this surrender is completely unnecessary—because, as the Opposition know, it is based on an advisory opinion. Ministers have failed to give a convincing answer as to why we should accept it, and there is no answer on what enforcement mechanisms would exist, other than some hypothetical comments about the electromagnetic spectrum and the International Telecommunication Union. So tell us today, please.

We have not only a Government of incompetent politicians, but a Government of incompetent lawyers. In the words of President Trump, Labour is surrendering sovereignty “for no reason whatsoever.” Given this Labour Government’s obsession with international law, it is surprising and shocking that they are not just misinterpreting it, but have overlooked essential detail in the 1966 UK-US exchange of notes. This is now the third time I have brought the exchange of notes to the Dispatch Box in just the last week, Mr Speaker. For the avoidance of any doubt in the House or any ignorance on the Government Benches, the 1966 treaty with the USA, which establishes the military base on Diego Garcia, states that the whole of the British Indian Ocean Territory

“shall remain under United Kingdom sovereignty.”

It goes on:

“Subject to the provisions set out below the islands”—

all the Chagos islands, not just Diego Garcia—

“shall be available to meet the needs of both Governments for defense”.

This is a legally binding treaty between the United Kingdom and the United States of America on the British Indian Ocean Territory, and any attempt by the UK to surrender sovereignty over BIOT violates international law. Yet when the Government signed and published their treaty on 22 May last year, and then published their surrender Bill, there was not a single mention in either the treaty or the Bill of the need for the exchange of notes.

On Monday, in response to our urgent question, the Minister for the Overseas Territories, the hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty), said:

“we have been clear throughout that before the UK can ratify the treaty, we will need to do the following: pass primary and secondary legislation; update the UK-US agreement—the exchange of notes; and put in place arrangements on the environment, maritime security and migration”,—[Official Report, 26 January 2026; Vol. 779, c. 599.]

but this was not mentioned in any of the documents accompanying the legislation, let alone the treaty. When we have questioned this in both Houses, Ministers have merely said:

“Talks are ongoing to update the UK-US Exchange of Letters”,

but the exchange of notes was not even referred to in any of the documents accompanying the legislation.

I think this House deserves an explanation. When did the talks begin? What is the status of the talks? What is the timescale for making changes? Have the Americans raised concerns that the exchange of notes were not part of the original discussions with the US Government last year, when the Prime Minister said that the US supported the treaty? Why did the Government try to force through their surrender Bill without confirming the future of the exchange of notes?

[Dr Luke Evans (Hinckley and Bosworth) (Con)]

Negotiations may well be ongoing, but the key question is whether the UK can make a unilateral decision to give away sovereignty without the blessing of the US. This question was posed three times on Monday, and the Minister simply said it is under discussion. Ministers need to answer directly today, so I pose this question now: can this be done unilaterally or not?

[Priti Patel]

Well, this is the perfect debate and opportunity for the Government to answer. Perhaps the Minister would like to intervene right now—I would be very happy for her to answer that question.

I have another question for the Minister: have the American Administration questioned why the British Government would want to give up sovereignty of the British Indian Ocean Territory and, in doing so, violate international law? For once, the Minister needs to just be straightforward and give precise answers to the precise questions asked by those on the Opposition Benches, because the Government have continuously failed to do so.

British taxpayers, by the way, rightly want an explanation as to why their taxes should line the pockets of the Government of Mauritius without full and proper scrutiny and the disclosure and transparency that they deserve. Perhaps the Minister can tell us what exactly the National Security Adviser, Mr Powell, and the former ambassador, Lord Mandelson—remember him?—told the US Administration about the surrender treaty. It is well known that the Government are run by their friends and cronies, and it is also well known that Jonathan Powell, a friend of China, accelerated the negotiations when he was appointed envoy in September 2024. And can anyone in this House really trust anything that Lord Mandelson would have been involved in? That is definitely a question for the Government.

[Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)]

Will the right hon. Lady agree that we stand at a critical point for not just this nation but the United States of America, and that it too should have regard to the fact that up to this point, the islands have been under the control of a nuclear power with a navy, and that this treaty would hand them over to a country more than 1,000 miles away with no navy. Does that not create an obvious geopolitical vacuum to which we are all vulnerable? Should the Americans in particular not be very wary of that?

[Priti Patel]

As is often the case, the hon. and learned Gentleman is spot on. That is exactly why the Minister has this marvellous opportunity today to explain this to the House and the British public.

Let us not forget that President Trump, the commander-in-chief, said that the UK is giving away extremely important land in an “act of great stupidity”—I think the House would agree with that comment—and that:

“There is no doubt that China and Russia have noticed this act of total weakness.”

Has there been any Minister-to-Minister engagement with the US Administration on this? Had the Prime Minister spoken directly to the President on this matter before kowtowing to China? I asked this very question here on Monday, but the Minister for the Overseas Territories, who is not present, could not answer. There is a new opportunity today for the Minister for the Indo-Pacific, the hon. Member for Feltham and Heston (Seema Malhotra), to tell us: yes or no?

On that point, it is also worth asking whether, should there be a change in the proposed US-UK treaty, it will come to Parliament through the 21-day Constitutional Reform and Governance Act process? Again, we asked this question on Monday, and the Minister refused to answer. What are the Government trying to hide? As Labour failed to provide the House with scrutiny under the previous CRaG process, it is clearly happy to give away this sovereign territory and billions in taxpayers’ money without being held to account.

Given the Labour Government’s abject failure to clarify these points, it took Conservatives in the other place to take action, leading to this pause of the treaty. Instead of showing some humility and transparency and commitment to engage in proper scrutiny, however, Labour has sought to gaslight its critics—and, by the way, the British public—with a Government spokesperson telling the media:

“This is irresponsible and reckless behaviour by peers”.

Blaming peers—Conservatives, Cross Benchers and others—for doing their job diligently is another new low from a Labour Government seeking to undermine accountability, democracy, scrutiny and accountability. When the junior Minister for the Indo-Pacific responds, I hope she will speak on behalf of this feeble Labour Government and apologise to the British people for their appalling and discredited conduct.

[Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)]

Like my right hon. Friend, I am proud of the role that Conservative peers have played in this, but can we also take a moment to pay credit to Back-Bench Labour MPs? I think it is important to note that they are not here. Practically the only Government Member present, scribbling away, is the hon. Member for Rugby (John Slinger), whom I admire a great deal, but who is loyalist to his very core. If he is the only Member prepared to speak up, the truth is that Labour MPs have voted with their feet, and they now agree with my right hon. Friend that this deal has to go.

[Priti Patel]

I commend my right hon. Friend for his intervention. He has highlighted a lot of things there, which, in the interest of time, I am grateful for, because we have a lot of other colleagues who want to speak. It is worth pointing out that the Government will have a few of their Members who like to climb the greasy pole—there is one, who is not present today, who is now the trade envoy for Mauritius because he spoke up so frequently for the Government.

Ultimately, this is about the security and defence of our country. [Interruption.] No, no. The Government have a lot of questions to answer, because their feeble remarks in defence of this entire process have been absolutely shameful. That includes on China, with not just the Government’s relationship with China, but the relationship between the Governments of China and Russia. We have had completely misleading remarks about China and Mauritius, when it is the Opposition who have constantly called out that cosy relationship. I have even brought the Minister some press cuttings, but, as she has responsibility for the Indo-Pacific, she may have seen them already. None the less, I advise her to read the website of the Chinese Foreign Affairs Ministry. It provides a weekly diary of its friendly relationship with the Government of Mauritius.

On the Pelindaba treaty, we have already heard the comments about what this now means. It is absolutely wrong to inhibit and restrict our ability when it comes to stationing a nuclear deterrent on Diego Garcia, and it is right that we on the Conservatives Benches continue to question this.

Before I conclude, let me discuss the money. It is an absolute disgrace that this House has not had full disclosure on the money. It is in the public interest for Ministers to tell the truth, to be held to account, and to stop hiding the true cost by misrepresenting the positions of the Office for Budget Responsibility and the Government Actuary’s Department. That is utterly shameful. Today, Labour MPs have an opportunity to join us—

[Graham Stuart]

Where are they?

[Priti Patel]

They are all in hiding, because they are embarrassed. They can join us and stop this surrender. They can tell their constituents that they voted to save a British territory from being lost, that they stood up for our defence and security, that they voted to save £35 billion from disgracefully being handed over to a foreign Government while their taxes at home go up and their public services are squeezed, and that they voted to defend the rights of the Chagossians. Alternatively, they can sleepwalk through the Division Lobby like sheep, defending the indefensible and backing another Labour weak policy and failure of their enfeebled Prime Minister. Conservatives have opposed this deal at every stage from day one and we will continue to do so. We will fight to kill this Bill to defend both British sovereignty and Britain’s pride and national interests.

Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill

Priti Patel Excerpts

Monday 26th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Priti Patel (Witham) (Con)]

(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs if she will make a statement on the Government’s plans for the Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill.

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

I hope that you make a swift recovery, Mr Speaker—having injured my ankle just before Christmas, I know how painful it can be.

On 22 May, the Diego Garcia treaty was signed and laid before the House. As the Defence Secretary told the House on the day of signature, the treaty secures the strategically important UK-US military base on the island of Diego Garcia. The base, as I have said in the House many times, is essential to the security of the United Kingdom and our key allies, including the United States. It is essential to keeping British people safe. It is also one of our most significant contributions to the transatlantic defence and security partnership, because it enables rapid deployment of operations and forces across the middle east, east Africa and south Asia, helping to combat some of the most challenging threats, including threats from terrorism and hostile states. Its unique strategic location creates real military advantage across the Indo-Pacific. The facility has also helped the collection of data used to support counter-terrorism operations against, for instance, high-value Islamic State targets in recent years.

As we have made clear many times in the House, the UK will never compromise on our national security, and, as we have been repeatedly making clear, the agreement that we have struck is vital for protecting our national security, guaranteeing the long-term future of a base that is vital for both the UK and the United States, which had been under threat, as the Opposition fully understood and on which they were briefed. The deal secures the operations of the joint UK-US base on Diego Garcia for generations. It was publicly welcomed by the United States, Australia and all other Five Eyes partners, as well as key international partners, including India, Japan and South Korea.

Just last week, the House spent two hours debating the Lords amendments to the Bill. The Opposition will know, of course, that the programming of business in the other place is a matter for the other place and not for us. However, the Lords’ consideration of Commons amendments has been delayed because the Opposition tabled a wrecking amendment hours before the other place rose—[Interruption]—I think this just shows the measure of them, Mr Speaker—and a day before a scheduled debate. This is irresponsible and reckless behaviour from the official Opposition in the second House, using programming tactics to frustrate the implementation of a treaty on a critical national security matter.

I have to say that stands in stark contrast to the reasoned and constructive criticisms, questions and suggestions from Members in other parties, and indeed from Cross Benchers. We have engaged with those in good faith at every stage, and we will continue to do so. This is on the official Opposition, because their amendment is not only unnecessary; it is toying with our national security. It is only right that we take time to consider the next steps on programming, because we remain confident that this treaty is the best way forward.

The Lords will consider the Commons amendments in due course, and that will be announced in the usual way. The Government are committed to the deal that protects the joint UK-US base on Diego Garcia. Some have sought to sabotage the process through procedural motions and parliamentary stunts. We, instead, are focused on delivering this Bill to protect our national security.

[Priti Patel]

Labour’s Chagos surrender humiliation continues. Today the Government were hoping to force through their surrender Bill in the House of Lords—giving away territory, handing over £35 billion to a foreign Government allied to China, and betraying the Chagossians. But after the Conservatives pointed out how their surrender would violate our existing international obligations and challenged the Government, the Government pulled the Bill from the House of Lords Order Paper to avoid being defeated.

In its rush to appease left-wing lawyer friends, Labour overlooked the 1966 treaty between the UK and the US. I have a copy in front of me for the Minister to read. It states that the British Indian Ocean Territory

“shall remain under the United Kingdom’s sovereignty.”

Does the Minister accept that the Bill and the treaty with Mauritius violate the 1966 treaty with the US? Following the US President saying that the UK is giving away the Chagos Islands

“FOR NO REASON WHATSOVER…There is no doubt that China and Russia have noticed this act of total weakness…The UK giving away extremely important land is an act of GREAT STUPIDITY”,

can the Minister tell us what discussions have taken place with the US Administration in the last few days and whether they have communicated that they are now reviewing the deal?

Britain’s weak Prime Minister seemed to suggest in the House last week that he was being bullied by the President, which is quite a personal statement. Has the Prime Minister had a direct discussion with the President about Chagos in the last week, and can the Minister confirm that any changes to our 1966 treaty with the US will undergo parliamentary scrutiny under the 21-day Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010 process, with time given for debates and votes? Does he accept that it would be logical for this House to consider amendments to the 1996 treaty with the US before proceeding with the Bill? Can the Minister confirm that upon appointment as the British Indian Ocean Territory envoy and before becoming National Security Adviser, Jonathan Powell, a friend of China, accelerated the negotiations with Mauritius to surrender the Chagos Islands? It is time Labour saw sense, scrapped this treaty and stood up for Britain.

[Stephen Doughty]

I did think that perhaps the right hon. Lady might have something more, but the tone, the braying and the noise reflect a simple political stunt from the Conservatives, which is deeply regretful when we are talking about such important matters of national security.

The right hon. Lady asks specifically about the US-UK exchange of notes. I am genuinely surprised about that, because we have been clear throughout that before the UK can ratify the treaty, we will need to do the following: pass primary and secondary legislation; update the UK-US agreement—the exchange of notes; and put in place arrangements on the environment, maritime security and migration.

Perhaps the Conservatives have only just clocked on to the need to update the UK-US agreement, but the Minister in the other place answered the noble Lord Callanan’s question on 22 December:

“Talks are ongoing to update the UK-US Exchange of Letters on the operation of the Diego Garcia Base.”

We have been clear about that throughout, so presenting this as some sort of gotcha and saying that we have not looked at the law is absolute nonsense. Frankly, it is deeply, deeply irresponsible.

We have made excellent progress towards finalising an updated UK-US agreement. For the record—because the Conservatives will not have looked at any of the history of this—the UK-US agreement was updated in 1972 and 1976, twice in 1987, and in 1999, so this is a regular process. We have had to update it, for a range of reasons, in the past. We were always clear about the need to put in place the necessary domestic and international legal processes to deal with this matter. The idea that this is something new, or some sort of gotcha, is simply for the birds.

The right hon. Lady asks about the contact with the United States. We remain engaged with the United States on a daily basis on matters relating to our national security. We will continue to engage with it on this important matter and on the importance of the deal to secure US and UK interests, and allay any concerns, as we have done throughout this process. There is nothing new in that, and it is absolutely right that we do so.

The right hon. Lady’s claims about China were simply rubbish. I am really surprised that the Conservatives continue to play these shocking party political games.