Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill

Priti Patel Excerpts

Committee of the whole House
Monday 20th October 2025 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Doughty]

No, I am not going to give way now. There have been plenty of debates and questions, and plenty of discussion. The Government have provided all the information necessary for Parliament to hold us to account, including publishing the full costs of the treaty and the legal rationale for the deal. The International Agreements Committee and the International Relations and Defence Committee have confirmed their agreement that the Bill does what we have set out, and the Government do not take risks with our national security, as the Opposition or Reform would do. That has been our priority throughout. I reject the amendments and urge the passage of the Bill.

[Priti Patel]

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment proposed: 7, in clause 1, page 1, line 7, leave out subsection (2) and insert—

“(1A) The Treaty and sections 2 to 4 of this Act do not come into force until the Secretary of State lays before Parliament a memorandum on the obligations under international law which require the UK to cede sovereignty of the British Indian Ocean Territory to the Government of Mauritius.

(1B) The memorandum specified in subsection (1) must include—

(a) a summary of the legal advice received by the UK Government on this issue;

(b) an analysis of the status of UK's sovereignty over the British Indian Ocean Territory under international law;

(c) the legal argument for the cessation of British sovereignty over the British Indian Ocean Territory; and

(d) the risks which the UK Government may have faced had it not reached an agreement with the Government of Mauritius.

(1C) The report specified in subsections (1A) and (1B) must be laid before Parliament no later than two months after this Act receives Royal Assent.”—(Priti Patel.)

Question put, That the amendment be made.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Minister for Defence Readiness and Industry (Luke Pollard)]

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

In a world that is growing more dangerous, this Labour Government will always put Britain’s security first, and if there is one thing that Members should take away from today’s debate, it is the absolute necessity of this Bill to secure the military base on Diego Garcia, which has played a critical role in defending the UK and our allies for over 50 years. Both the treaty and the Bill guarantee the long-term, secure operation of our military base and ensure that it will continue protecting our national security for generations to come.

Let me take this opportunity to thank Members on both sides of the House for their scrutiny of the Bill throughout its passage. I am grateful to those who contributed to the vigorous debate on Second Reading in September and to those who participated in today’s Committee proceedings. I thank the International Agreements Committee and the International Relations and Defence Committee for their thorough inquiries into the substance of the treaty. In particular, I want to thank the Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty), for his tireless efforts in guiding the Bill through the House.

I would also like to thank the officials who worked on the Bill and the treaty, both under this Government and under the previous Government. Lastly, I would like to express my sincere gratitude to our international allies, especially the United States, for their support throughout the treaty negotiation process. Their backing was crucial in ensuring that this treaty, in the words of the US Defence Secretary Hegseth,

“secures the operational capabilities of the base…for many years ahead.”

This treaty also recognises the importance of the islands to the Chagossians. This Government respect the diversity of views within the community, so we will continue to engage with the Chagossian groups over the coming months and years. We have also committed to increase our support through new and existing projects. The US, our Five Eyes partners, India, Japan and the Republic of Korea have all supported this deal. Our adversaries would have loved to see this deal fail and the military base placed under threat, but this Government are not risking our national security, as the Opposition parties would claim we are.

Let me make it clear why we are here today. We inherited a set of negotiations started by the Conservatives. They chose to start negotiations to deliver what Lord Cameron said in January 2024 would be the

“safety, security and long-term viability of this base”.

The right hon. Member for Braintree (Sir James Cleverly) explained the objectives at this very Dispatch Box. He also said they were to

“secure an agreement on the basis of international law…to strengthen…cooperation”

with Mauritius on

“maritime security…the environment…and to tackle illegal migration”.—[Official Report, 3 November 2022; Vol. 721, c. 27WS.]

That is what this deal secures, and that is why I wish it a speedy and successful passage through the rest of its parliamentary proceedings.

Let us be absolutely clear: the Conservatives started the negotiations. They held 11 rounds, but they failed to secure a deal. It is a question that not a single Tory MP wanted to answer today: why did they start these negotiations if it was so bad? If it was such a threat to national security, why was it a Conservative Government who started the negotiations? Why did they hold 11 rounds? It was a Labour Government who secured the deal; it is a Labour Government who are going to secure the future of our military base, and that is why I commend the Bill to the House.

[Priti Patel]

Let me begin my remarks by once again paying tribute to the heroic Chagossian community who have joined us once again for this debate and have been here for a good four hours. In response to the Minister’s last point—he may have heard us say this previously on Second Reading and during Opposition day debates—no deal is better than a terrible deal, and the Conservative party would never have put this deal forward.

Throughout the process, the Government—[Interruption.] They can all make as much noise as they want on the Government benches. None of them were here—[Interruption.] They can point their fingers as much as they want; none of them were sitting here earlier to defend their Government on this terrible deal.

Let me come back to the Chagossian community, because throughout this process, they have been silenced and ignored by this Government, and they have faced decades of pain and hurt. [Laughter.] This is not a laughing matter at all. Hon. Members may want to sneer about this, but they should pay some respect to the Chagossian people, because we praise them and are grateful to them for their dignified campaign. There are some Members in this House, even on the Government Benches, who have Chagossians as their own constituents, who they have made representations on behalf of as well. I think we should thank them for the work that they have done.

I also want to thank hon. Members from across the House for their interest in this Bill and their diligent scrutiny. I say that because the Labour Government have sought to keep debates on their surrender treaty as short and restricted as possible, and we have seen that again. [Interruption.] They have not been here to contribute to those debates—what would they know? I am particularly grateful for the efforts of hon. Members who have challenged and debated the Bill, including the interest in the Foreign Affairs Committee evidence session. Opposition Members on the Environmental Audit Committee and the Science and Technology Committee spent valuable time in Select Committees—let me emphasise that: in Select Committees—scrutinising this treaty. Opposition Members have been relentless and I thank them for their forensic questioning and for exposing the scandalous way in which this Government have acted. These debates have benefited from the legal expertise and knowledge of former Ministers and Law Officers, and I am thankful to them for their contribution and support.

I also want to pay tribute to the Minister for the Overseas Territories, the hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty). He has been diligent in responding to questioning, and he has probably spent more time in the House debating this issue, as well as responding to written communications, than he originally expected. He has become the Minister for defending the indefensible. Although we do disagree robustly on this treaty, we thank him and respect him for his contributions.

Let us be clear: this is a bad Bill for Britain; the Opposition will continue to oppose it, and our colleagues in the other place will give it further scrutiny. It leaves Britain weaker and poorer, it gives succour to our enemies, and it has shown the world that, under Labour, Britain is being governed by weak Ministers who appease the whims of left-wing lawyers and activists, rather than standing up for our national interest. Friend and foe alike will now see Britain as a soft touch that can be bullied by lawfare into waving the white flag of surrender, rather than proudly flying the Union flag.

For Britain’s standing in the world, for our defence and national security, and for our suffering British taxpayers, I bitterly regret the passage of this Bill. For months we have been calling on Labour to step back from the brink and ditch this mind-boggling surrender deal, but this Government have arrogantly blundered on. Britain comprehensively lost in these negotiations, the treaty and the Bill that we have considered today as a result. Ministers have squirmed and rolled over at every turn and have been eaten for breakfast by the Mauritian Government.

Let me be clear: we will oppose this Bill every step of the way in this House and in the other place. It is worth noting that within weeks of coming to power, this soft-touch Government decided that they would end more than 200 years of British sovereignty over this vital territory for our country’s security and national interest, and for no justifiable reason. We are not just giving up the islands of the archipelago; more than that, the national interest is being squandered, and so is peace and stability in that area.

The Government are asking British taxpayers, whom they have already thrashed with vindictive taxes, now to shoulder the burden of this scandalous deal, and it is simply not on. Labour Governments often bang on about the redistribution of wealth, but today they take it to a new level with the redistribution of wealth from Britain to Mauritius. How much of the money will be plundered from the Defence budget, hindering our armed forces’ ability to procure new capabilities at the worst possible time? It comes as the Minister for Defence Procurement has overseen a freeze on procurement as the world gets more dangerous, and we do know that the world is getting more dangerous. The much-vaunted strategic defence review, which Labour pledged would see off all the major threats, was overdue and underfunded—but guess what? Labour has no plan to pay for it now.

Here we are now: the Government have found it within themselves to spend £35 billion on this deal. This is not just money from down the line in the future; it is hundreds of millions of pounds each year within this Parliament. Today the Government have sunk to a new low: Labour MPs have voted against giving Parliament, this House, a say over sending £35 billion of our constituents’ money to Mauritius with no strings attached. Mauritius will now use our money to reduce its debt and cut taxes because of this Government. Labour MPs have voted to block the publication of a summary of legal advice on which the Government relied to make this dodgy deal. We might have thought that they had learnt from the current China debacle that this is not the right way, but no, they still cannot offer a sound legal explanation for why they have rushed through this deal.

The Government have refused to adopt our amendments to ensure the monitoring of how the rights of Chagossians will be safeguarded. The Chagossians, to whom we have a special responsibility, have been neglected and ignored by Labour since the election, so it comes as no surprise—and it is now a bitter blow for them—that there is no cost implication or, indeed, any good reason as to why we are going down this route.

The Government have also declined to adopt our amendment to keep the Intelligence and Security Committee apprised of the security protections in this treaty, again denying hon. Members the scrutiny to which we are entitled. It is astonishing, in the light of the national security concerns that this terrible deal now brings, and it leaves our country weaker and poorer. This is a deal that this Government and our country will come to regret.

Ukraine

Priti Patel Excerpts

Wednesday 15th October 2025 Commons Chamber

[Priti Patel (Witham) (Con)]

I am grateful to the Foreign Secretary for giving me advance sight of her statement. I would also like to welcome her to her place in her new role. We meet again at the Dispatch Box; we have shadowed each other in many roles, and this time around it feels like she is following me in this portfolio.

On the occasion of the visit of the Chairman of the Ukrainian Parliament to our Parliament, it is right that Britain should stand with Ukraine on what will soon be the eve of the fourth winter of Russia’s illegal invasion of Ukraine. Putin’s relentless efforts to obtain the territory of a sovereign European state by barbaric levels of force have undermined peace in Europe and the established international order. In recent months, we have seen European and NATO airspace brazenly and deliberately violated by Russian fighter jets. From Poland to Estonia to Romania, such aggressive provocation must yield stronger deterrence against Russia.

The same applies to the intensified aerial bombardment of Kyiv. The hundreds upon hundreds of Iranian Shahed drones attacking civilians represent a cruel attempt by Putin to psychologically torture Ukrainians, but the bombing will not break their resolve. From Russia’s kidnapping of Ukrainian children to the daily bombardment of propaganda and bombs, Britain must stand firm to level the playing field for Ukraine so that it can repel those attacks. We must continually refuel our country’s ability to support Ukraine, and never stand still.

Is the Foreign Secretary brokering more packages, here at home or across NATO, to support Ukraine’s air defence? The 100-year partnership agreement with Ukraine must be leveraged to support innovation in defence technology and production within Ukraine right now, while we also learn from Ukraine’s successes in these fields. The way the Ukrainian people have conducted themselves and continued to fight for what is rightfully theirs in the face of the barbarity and savagery that many of us thought was confined to a bygone era will go down in history. We must ensure that Russia’s defeat goes down in history, too. To do that, Britain must lead all allies to raise the price of Russia’s aggression by cutting off Russia’s financial lifelines, which continue to fund Putin’s war in Ukraine and fight against our democratic values.

I welcome the Foreign Secretary’s announcements today of the new entities, including the ships that have been sanctioned as of today. She will know that China, India and Turkey have become the mainstay of Russian oil exports, together purchasing around $380 billion of Russian crude. This provides Putin with a lifeline to fund this illegal war and invasion, at the cost of around $1 billion per day, so in addition to the new sanctions announced today, can the Foreign Secretary confirm whether she or the Prime Minister have had any discussions with India, Turkey and China about refineries in their own countries purchasing Russian oil and then re-exporting it? Is the UK in a position to spearhead a direct challenge and get this stopped? Will the Foreign Secretary challenge European countries who are still importing Russian liquefied natural gas to phase this out far more rapidly? I recognise and appreciate her comments about EU countries and the sanctions package.

Further to the new banking sanctions that the Foreign Secretary has announced, will she commit to review what we can do to limit Russia’s banking sector, including its regional banks? On the mobilisation of frozen assets, we need to go beyond just offering Ukraine loans from the revenues of the sanctioned assets and find a new formula under the law that mobilises the assets to fund Ukraine’s defeat of Russia in the immediate term. London is home to our world-class capital market, and the City of London must be deployed to help find solutions that our diplomats can then sell to our allies, because this needs concerted action. Can the Foreign Secretary confirm whether the coalition of the willing, convened in February this year, is as determined as it was then not just to stand with Ukraine but to work to find solutions to these major issues?

The UK must commit to spending 3% on defence by the end of the decade. This is a vital step on our route to the higher sustained spending demanded by the new NATO targets. In her new role as Foreign Secretary, is the right hon. Lady in discussions with the Chancellor about this? Britain must be ready for continuous tension with Russia with effective deterrents against sub-conventional threats such as hybrid warfare, sabotage of infrastructure, disinformation, election interference and killings. If we do not put up boundaries now, Russia will come closer, but it is stoppable.

We have seen positive developments in recent weeks, including the decisive election result in Moldova that should cement its Euro-Atlantic trajectory, but Russia’s behaviour elsewhere, from Georgia to the Balkans and including the stationing of nuclear weapons in Belarus, is deeply alarming. Here at home, there are reports that the cyber-attack on Jaguar Land Rover may have emanated from Russia. Is the Foreign Secretary able to confirm that attribution? The whole Euro-Atlantic alliance needs to be incredibly robust, because the lessons of the last 20 years are crystal clear and the outcome of the war in Ukraine will shape the future of European global security.

President Trump’s recent remarks were absolutely right. Our Ukrainian friends can regain the territory that is rightfully theirs, and we support them on that. Britain and our European allies must now pull out all the stops to help our Ukrainian friends to expedite Putin’s exit from their country. We should be clear that territorial concessions must never happen, as this would be a reward for Putin’s barbarism. Britain should and can lead the way in weakening Putin’s war machine with a full range of hard-hitting new sanctions and brokering new military aid packages with our allies to ensure that Ukraine has the capabilities it needs to defeat Putin’s tyranny.

[Yvette Cooper]

I welcome the shadow Foreign Secretary’s response, and I am glad to face her across the Dispatch Box again. I think she and I have probably missed each other. This time round, we agree on some things, which is perhaps a new experience for both of us.

I checked, and I think that the last time the right hon. Lady and I were opposite each other—although we were on the opposite sides of the House then—was on 5 September 2022, the day that Liz Truss was confirmed as Prime Minister. It was perhaps not quite such a good day for the right hon. Lady, who then lost her place as Home Secretary. It was also not such a good time for the country.

Interestingly, after our exchanges on that day, the next discussion was on Ukraine. My right hon. Friend the Member for Rawmarsh and Conisbrough (John Healey), now the Defence Secretary, speaking from the Opposition Benches, began his remarks by observing that it was day 194 of a war that Vladimir Putin had expected to be over inside a week. He saluted the bravery of the Ukrainian resistance and pledged the Labour party’s full backing for every aspect of what the right hon. Lady’s Government were doing at the time. Now here we are on day 1,330, and all of us in this House are still full of admiration and respect for the Ukrainian resistance, and determined to support Ukraine in the face of the continuing Russian onslaught.

I welcome the continuation of the shadow Foreign Secretary’s cross-party support for the Ukrainian people, for the actions that we need to continue to take to support Ukraine in its defence, and for the pressure that we need to exert. I can assure her that we will continue to support Ukraine’s defences, and to look at what more we can do. The Defence Secretary has also set out new partnerships; in particular, we are working with Ukraine on developing new drone technology, learning from its technological experiences, and helping it with production.

The right hon. Lady raised issues about third countries—China, India, Turkey and other European countries that have continued to be involved in purchasing things from Russia. We want as wide a consensus as possible on economic pressure on Russia over Ukraine. I continue to raise this with many different countries, including some of those that that she referred to. Also, in our sanctions package, we are including sanctions against entities operating in third countries; we need to continue to do so.

We need to be clear that the ability to target Russian sovereign assets needs to be about mobilising the assets, and going further to ensure that there is an effective way to do that. We believe that there is, and we have been working with the EU on that. We will continue to put considerable pressure on as many countries as possible to join us in taking action on Russian sovereign assets. I think that all of us in the House—or at least the majority of the parties here, with one unfortunate exception—are clear that we need to continue to stand in solidarity with Ukraine, not just now, not just tomorrow, but for the future.

Qatar: Israeli Strike

Priti Patel Excerpts

Wednesday 10th September 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

We come now to shadow Foreign Secretary.

[Priti Patel (Witham) (Con)]

This is clearly a very, very serious moment for the middle east. No one in this House wants to see a spiral of escalation of hostilities. Both Israel and Qatar are important and valued strategic partners for the United Kingdom, and we value and recognise the extensive efforts by the Qatari Government to secure the release of hostages and work towards securing a ceasefire. It is tragic, as the Minister has highlighted, that security guards were killed in this attack, but there are some fundamental issues here, and many of these points have been made from the Dispatch Box time and again.

This is a moment for our country. Britain must contribute and provide the British expertise necessary for conflict resolution and support strong regional initiatives, including backing Qatar and the Qataris on releasing the hostages and achieving a ceasefire.

On top of that, of course, we must work with our allies in the United States, and next week’s visit from President Trump is a crucial moment. There can be no more equivocation, as this issue continues to afflict the region day after day after day.

It is also true that we certainly should not be mourning the Hamas leaders who have been killed. Hamas have held innocent hostages in terrorist captivity for over 700 days, and they were responsible for the atrocities of 7 October 2023, which also killed British nationals.

In recent months, Israel has been removing terrorist actors across the middle east—the leadership of the Houthis, Hezbollah and malign individuals in the Iranian regime too. That means that our Government must play a strong role and stand firm on degrading Iran’s nuclear capabilities and that malign influence in the region. In recognising the sensitivity of the situation in the Gulf, will the Minister confirm what actions he and the FCDO will take to stabilise efforts to secure the release of the hostages; what proactive steps are being taken to degrade Hamas and their capabilities; and, of course, how we can work constructively with our partners in the region to drive the right outcomes, including achieving a ceasefire?

[Mr Falconer]

I thank the right hon. Lady for those important questions. The British Government are fully committed, with our Gulf and G7 partners, to efforts to ensure that the current negotiations come to the conclusions that we wish to see. Those include conclusions in the short term—we have long repudiated Hamas’s hostage taking, so the hostages need to be released immediately, and humanitarian aid must get into Gaza. As I said in response to the hon. Member for Bicester and Woodstock (Calum Miller), there are also other questions about governance and security, and about the long-term prospects for Gaza, for the west bank, and for a state of Palestine and a state of Israel living side by side. We are fully engaged in that diplomacy, as the right hon. Lady would expect.

On the right hon. Lady’s wider question about fragility in the region, she will be familiar with the decisions we have taken on snapback. I imagine that we will return to discuss Iran in greater detail at some point in the future, as I am conscious that there were developments over recess. We have triggered snapback and we will continue to return to the House to discuss the threat of Iran’s nuclear programme.

Oral Answers to Questions

Priti Patel Excerpts

Tuesday 2nd September 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Foreign Secretary.

[Priti Patel (Witham) (Con)]

As Ukraine passes the grim milestone of its fourth independence day since Putin began his barbaric invasion, we have seen nothing but sustained aerial assaults and brutality from Putin. May I ask the Foreign Secretary directly what he will do to redouble his efforts in relation to sanctions—specific sanctions on those who are profiteering and making money from Russian oil? That is effectively what is fuelling Putin’s war machine and his barbaric assault on democracy.

[Mr Lammy]

I am grateful for the cross-party support in the Chamber on the issue of Ukraine. We have done a lot to lower the oil price cap, which I think has been essential. We, alongside the last Government, have the largest package of sanctions anywhere in the world against Putin’s war machine. I cannot comment from the Dispatch Box on further sanctions, but the right hon. Lady will see an announcement very shortly.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Foreign Secretary.

[Priti Patel (Witham) (Con)]

The Joint Committee on Human Rights’ recent report into transnational repression recommended that China be placed on the enhanced tier of the foreign influence registration scheme, alongside Iran and Russia. Clearly, this follows concerns following the China audit and the national security strategy, so I have a very specific question for the Foreign Secretary: when will he recognise that China is a threat to our national security and put it on the enhanced tier of FIRS?

[Mr Lammy]

The right hon. Lady and I exchanged debate when we published the China audit. There was discussion at the national security strategy, and the Defence Secretary also set out his concerns about Chinese activity in the South China sea in the defence strategy. There have been a lot of debates and discussion in relation to China, and I have been very clear that there are areas where we will co-operate, but we will always challenge where we must.

[Priti Patel]

On 7 August, I wrote to the Foreign Secretary about the deadly sectarian violence that we have witnessed in Syria, which threatens further destabilisation and fallout that we all know could come soon. While I have not received a response, I did specifically ask in that letter whether he would call for justice and accountability for those responsible for the recent killings—the reports are very shocking. Does he agree that there could be a role for the Commission for International Justice and Accountability, which I understand the Minister for the Middle East met and praised in Damascus just last week?

[Mr Lammy]

I am very grateful to the right hon. Lady for raising this issue. It was important for me to look into the eyes of al-Sharaa when I was in Syria, and the Minister for the Middle East was also in Syria very recently. I have been concerned about the increase in terrorist activity and about the position of minorities, and of course we continue to discuss this with the Syrians. We are also worried about those in the neighbourhood, like Israel, as some of the activity is destabilising what is going on, and of course I will look at the issue that she raises.

Middle East

Priti Patel Excerpts

Monday 1st September 2025 Commons Chamber

[Priti Patel (Witham) (Con)]

I thank the Foreign Secretary for advance sight of his statement. Let me also express my sympathy for the people of Afghanistan who are suffering as a result of last night’s major earthquake.

Since the House last met, the awful conflict in the middle east has continued to see lives lost, with intolerable suffering. Hamas continues to refuse the release of all remaining hostages, despite the best efforts of those trying to broker peace. The hostages are now approaching 700 days in captivity, and the whole House will have been sickened by the harrowing clip of the emaciated hostage Evyatar David, which was released by Hamas over the summer. The humanitarian situation in Gaza is dire, and we are all familiar with the reports that we have seen daily on news channels. The inhumane suffering, the recent airstrikes and the inability to provide food for civilians simply cannot go on. We all want an urgent and sustainable end to this conflict. We want to see the release of the hostages from terrorist captivity, and to see aid for the people of Gaza.

There are key questions for the British Government to answer. The British Government are in a position to help influence those outcomes, but are they actually fully leveraging their ability to do so? The Government’s frequent statements have so far not moved the dial closer to a sustainable end to the conflict, and, as the Foreign Secretary himself has said, we are not in a position to see any alleviation of this horrendous situation. Diplomacy is about putting in the hard yards to find solutions, not just about giving statements, and I therefore want to ask the Foreign Secretary three specific questions.

First, are the Government taking any new specific action to tighten the screws on Hamas and pile more pressure on them to release the hostages? Should we expect more measures to further degrade Hamas’s ability to finance their campaign of terror? Why are the Government not leading international efforts to produce a credible plan to do exactly that, with an agreement from all the key regional partners and players with an interest in peace to see Hamas leave Gaza? Secondly, can the Foreign Secretary update the House on precisely where we stand and what Britain is contributing to the efforts of the United Nations and our regional allies to broker the release of hostages, and to an end of the conflict? Are we intimately involved, and are we sending in the UK expertise to help, given that we have great expertise when it comes to brokering negotiations of this kind? Thirdly, while we note the Foreign Secretary’s announcement yesterday about support for women and girls, the Government have yet to make essential breakthroughs on aid.

Ministers must obviously work around the clock with everyone—with all our partners, including the Israelis and multinational institutions—to unblock the situation by coming up with practical solutions, even new solutions, on which all sides can focus when it comes to getting medical and food aid into Gaza. That must provide a significant increase in food and medical supplies reaching civilians while also addressing Israeli concerns about aid diversion, because those concerns are constant. Is the UK working with the multilateral bodies to try to mediate in the divisions and breakdowns of trust that have emerged with the Government of Israel? Is the Foreign Secretary considering schemes similar to those implemented by the Conservative Government, such as the floating piers that, working with the United States and Cyprus, we put in place off the coast of Gaza to get aid in? We need pragmatic and practical solutions to get food and medical supplies to innocent civilians in Gaza.

Let me now turn to Labour’s decision to recognise a Palestinian state. The Government announced that huge shift in British policy just days after the House went into recess. We all support a two-state solution that guarantees security for both Israelis and Palestinians, but the Foreign Secretary must know that recognising a Palestinian state in September will not secure the lasting peace that we all want to see. Recognition is meaningful only if it is part of a formal peace process, and it should not happen while the hostages are still being held in terrorist captivity and while Hamas’s reign of terror continues. Can the Foreign Secretary explain his plan to go ahead with recognition while hostages are still being held, and while Hamas, who have predictably welcomed and been emboldened by this move, continue to hold on to power in Gaza? What practical measures are we proposing to remove Hamas from Gaza?

The Foreign Secretary must realise that recognition will not secure the release of the hostages or get aid into Gaza immediately. We must always consider what tools of leverage we have in respect of future peace processes and negotiations that could actually help to establish a two-state solution and peace in the middle east. How will this unilateral action help to advance the best shot that we have at achieving a two-state solution, which is the expansion of the Abraham accords and Saudi normalisation, through which we could also calibrate our actions?

As for the question of the middle east more broadly, the appalling behaviour of the Iranian regime has gone on for too long, and the regime has brought the initiation of the snapback process on itself. The Iranian people deserve much better. Tehran must never obtain a nuclear weapon, and Conservatives remain clear about the fact that the recent US strikes were necessary. Can the Foreign Secretary tell us whether he believes that Iran has the capability and the intention of recommencing its nuclear programme, and whether his assumption is that the snapback process will be seen through to completion? Can he tell us whether or not he welcomes Israel’s actions regarding the Houthi leadership in Yemen, and can he update the House on how the UK will use this moment to further degrade the Houthis’ ability to carry out the attacks and strikes that we have seen recently?

[Mr Lammy]

I am grateful to the shadow Foreign Secretary for the tone of her remarks. I am pleased that she agrees with me and, indeed, shares the sentiment of the entire House on the dire—as she described it— humanitarian situation in Gaza and the inhumanity that she also described. She will recognise that even before we came to power, the last Government were calling for the ceasefire that we all want to see.

The right hon. Lady asked what the Government were doing in relation to Hamas. In New York, with our Arab partners, the French and others, we were doing just that—supporting the Prime Minister’s framework for peace, and working with colleagues to establish the circumstances of the day after. We have been crystal clear: there can be no role for Hamas. We need the demilitarisation of Gaza, and we are working with partners to try to set up the trusteeship, the new governance arrangement with Gaza. No Government are doing more than we are. We signed a memorandum of understanding with the Palestinian Authority, and we are working with it on reform in a deliberate, day-to-day action, because there must be a role for it subsequently.

The right hon. Lady asked what new solutions on aid might be found. That is where I depart with her sentiments, because I am not sure that we need new solutions. We need the old ones: the United Nations Relief and Works Agency, the United Nations Office for the Co-ordination of Humanitarian Affairs, and the World Food Programme. They exist, so let us support them. It was this party that restored funding to UNRWA when it was opposed by the Opposition. Let me say gently to the right hon. Lady that that is not what feeds women and girls. The mechanisms are there, and they work all over the globe. This worked the last time we had a ceasefire, when as many as 600 trucks a day went in, and we can do it once more. That is the position of the UK Government.

I spoke to Tom Fletcher at the United Nations this morning to get the latest. The moderately good news is that the number of truck movements in August was higher than it was when I last updated the House in July, as the House was going into recess, but he reminded me that 60 or 70 trucks a day was nowhere near the number needed. I found the extra resources today because we know that the medical situation is dire, and the work that we can do with UK-Med is so important and so valued even when we are up against this horrific situation.

Let me be crystal clear: Hamas is a terrorist organisation. Our demands are unconditional and have not changed. The hostages must be released without delay, and there can be no role for Hamas. But equally, the right hon. Lady will have seen the situation in the west bank. She did not comment on the E1 development running a coach and horses through the idea of two states, which has been the united position of every single party in this Chamber. That is why we set out the plans for recognition. Unless we get the breakthrough that we need on the ceasefire and a full process, we will move to recognition when UNGA meets in New York.

I am grateful for the right hon. Lady’s support on Iran and the snapback. My assessment is that no country needs the percentages of enriched uranium that we see in Iran. We do not have them in our country. We do not have them at sites like Sellafield and others, including the Urenco site. There is absolutely no need for them. We need a baseline, and that is why we need the inspectors back in. We need to know where the highly enriched uranium has gone, and that is why we have been very clear with the Iranians on the need to trigger snapback. We will see the sanctions come back unless we can reach a diplomatic solution in the next 30 days.

Middle East

Priti Patel Excerpts

Monday 21st July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Priti Patel (Witham) (Con)]

I am grateful to the Foreign Secretary for advance sight of his statement.

The violence, loss of life and conflicts that continue in the middle east shock us all. Events in the middle east have a direct impact on our national interests and on people living on our own country, from concerns about family members in the region to demonstrations on our streets, and from the threats from Iran to the rise of antisemitism. We on the Opposition side of the House are clear that we want to see an end to the conflict in Gaza. We want to see the return of the hostages. The humanitarian support, which is so desperately needed, must get in. There must be an end to the terror inflicted by Hamas and Iran. However, the reality of peace and a sustainable end to the conflict in Gaza seems to be drifting further away.

What is Britain’s role when it comes to workable outcomes and practical solutions to advance an end to this conflict, and what diplomatic action is being taken with regional allies and the United States? Where is Britain’s voice and action when it comes to putting new pressure on Hamas to agree to the most recent US proposals to secure a ceasefire, and release the hostages who have been in cruel captivity for more than 650 days? As for the statement that the Foreign Secretary signed earlier today, can he explain what an “unconditional and permanent” ceasefire means for Hamas and the Palestinian Authority?

Last week, I met Keith and Aviva Siegel, and heard about their harrowing experience of being held in brutal captivity by Hamas. I pay tribute to them for their incredible bravery and resilience, and for their dedication to securing the freedom of the remaining hostages, from Gali and Ziv Berman to Matan Angrest and Omri Miran, and all those being held in barbaric captivity. They must be returned to their loved ones. The hostages are being denied humanitarian access by Hamas. What are the Government doing about that, and when was the Foreign Secretary’s last intervention on the issue?

The situation relating to aid for Gaza has deteriorated beyond all rational comprehension. The daily reports of casualties seeking aid are appalling, and we utterly condemn these attacks. But our words and political statements of condemnation are not saving lives, so what practical solutions, proposals and options have the Foreign Secretary and the British Government discussed with Israel in respect of aid supplies into Gaza? What dialogue is there to find agreement on the opening of access for that aid that goes beyond the current dangerous approach? I remind the House that the last Conservative Government, through Lord Cameron, secured new aid routes and better aid access to save lives. Surely the desperate urgency of the situation, which we all see, calls for such options to be considered once again.

I reiterate our long-standing position that settlements are not helpful to achieving long-term peace. Israel should not take steps that could make a two-state solution more difficult, and must use its legal system to clamp down on settler violence. We want a two-state solution that guarantees security and stability for both Israelis and Palestinians, and I am sure the Foreign Secretary agrees that it should come only at a time that is conducive to peace and cannot be the start of a peace process—certainly not while Israeli hostages are still in captivity in Gaza. Does he agree that there needs to be a clear plan and international measures to see the exit of Hamas from Gaza?

As for Syria, the barbaric violence that we have witnessed in recent days cannot continue. All groups and minorities in Syria must be protected. The Foreign Secretary mentioned his recent discussions with the transitional Syrian leadership. Did he convey to those in charge that they have a responsibility to end the armed conflict in their country and guarantee the protection of all minority groups in Syria, before the international community removes sanctions and normalises diplomatic relationships? What assurances has he received from the transitional Government, and have those commitments been met in any way with measurable action? Will he update the House on whether any of the £64.5 million dedicated to Syria that was announced by the Government earlier this month will be used to deal with the aftermath of these latest clashes, and on how it will be spent? Does he deem sufficient action to have been taken by the interim Government on the destruction of chemical weapons? Does he believe that the Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham Government are capable of securing Syria’s borders, and does he intend to change the proscribed status of HTS? What is his assessment of the effect of the sanctions that have already been lifted? Have they had any unintended side effects? Syria’s future still hangs in the balance, and we need to be wholly evidence-led in our approach.

The Foreign Secretary did not mention Iran, but we understand from reports that Iran, Britain, France and Germany are due to hold nuclear talks in Istanbul on Friday. What is the purpose of those talks, is he co-ordinating actions with the United States, and what is the content of the deal that he wants to see?

[Mr Lammy]

I am grateful to the shadow Foreign Secretary for the tone of her remarks, and I am grateful for the cross-party consensus in the House that this war must come to an end. I note the huge concern that we all feel, not just in the House but in the international community, about the humanitarian suffering that we continue to see.

The right hon. Lady asked what more could be done and prayed in aid the work of the former Foreign Secretary, Lord Cameron. She will recognise that Lord Cameron and, before him, the right hon. Member for Braintree (Sir James Cleverly) raised the humanitarian situation with the Israelis. It has become steadily worse. The number of aid points is now down to four, and, while the new foundation is offering aid, people are dying as they scramble for that aid. I note that the right hon. Lady did not say we should return to the 400 aid points that we had in the past, and she will note that her Government did not refund funding to the United Nations Relief and Works Agency, but we believe that the UN and its system are best placed to deliver aid to Gaza, and that is the position that we continue to maintain.

Against that backdrop, the right hon. Lady asked what we were doing on a multilateral basis and what we were doing in working with others to bring this to an end. I ask her to read the statement that has landed, which 31 countries have now signed up to. Of course we are pressing and working with colleagues. I spoke to Minister Sa’ar once again today, urging him to do the right thing—to secure a ceasefire, but also to look at the aid system that is not working.

As for governance, the right hon. Lady will know that in a couple of weeks’ time we will participate in the two-state conference that has been organised by France, and she will also know that that conference is now dedicated to looking closely at the governance arrangements that must be put in place. When Hamas leave—and they must go; they cannot govern Gaza—how do we ensure that it is not a 60-day pause, but that we bring an end to this and move to the two-state solution? The right hon. Lady knows our commitment to recognition, as set out in our manifesto, and the conversation about recognition that is going on internationally.

The right hon. Lady rightly pressed the case on Syria. When I met al-Sharaa, I made it absolutely clear that his Government had to be inclusive. I pressed him on his background as a terrorist, and on our concerns—the concerns that exist in this Chamber—but we must work with him to ensure that the Government are inclusive, and to ensure that security is fundamental. As the right hon. Lady will understand, there is much that we need to do to support them on counter-terrorism at this time, and, in a country where 90% of people are living in poverty, to ensure that people receive the aid and support that they need—and, indeed, that that aid and support go to the areas affected by the murders we have seen over the last few days.

Actions of Iranian Regime: UK Response

Priti Patel Excerpts

Monday 7th July 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 UK’s response to the actions of the Iranian regime.

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

We have long had concerns over Iran’s malign activity. Iran’s continued support to aligned groups, like Hezbollah and Hamas, undermines regional stability. It supports Russia’s illegal war in Ukraine through the provision of unmanned aerial vehicles and ballistic missiles, and it poses a threat to UK nationals, Iranian dissidents and Jewish people in the United Kingdom.

This Government will hold Iran accountable for its hostile activities. The Home Secretary announced on 19 May that Jonathan Hall’s review delivered recommendations to tackle state threats. We are committed to taking them forward, including through the creation of a new state threats proscription-like tool. In April, we sanctioned the Iranian-backed, Swedish-based Foxtrot criminal network for its role in attacks against targets across Europe. In September, in response to Iran’s transfer of ballistic missiles to Russia, we ended Iran’s air services agreement and stopped Iran Air flying directly into the UK.

We have placed Iran on the enhanced tier of the foreign influence registration scheme, enhancing transparency regarding foreign influence in the UK. We have so far designated 31 individuals in relation to malign Iranian activity. The UK now has more than 450 sanctions against Iranian-linked individuals and entities, including the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps in its entirety.

[Priti Patel]

As we mark the 20th anniversary of the London terrorist attacks, the victims, survivors and their families, and the emergency services personnel who responded that day, continue to be in our thoughts.

Two weeks have passed since the US airstrikes against Iran’s nuclear facilities. Does the Minister have an assessment of their impact, and what is his response to the Iranian regime now prohibiting co-operation with the International Atomic Energy Agency and its inspectors leaving Iran? Given Tehran’s refusal to co-operate, are the Minister and the Department in discussions with partners about applying snapback sanctions and other measures? Is he concerned that this demonstrates that Iran will continue to pursue its entire nuclear weapons programme? Given the information received through discussions with America, Israel and other intelligence partners, will the Government finally come off the fence about the strikes and agree with the Opposition that they were absolutely necessary? On our interests in the region, can the Minster assure us that he is taking continued steps to bolster the security of our military assets and personnel, and what assessment has he made of Iran’s ballistic missile capabilities and the threats that they may continue to pose to our interests?

We agree that Iran can never have a nuclear bomb, but the regime is a fundamental menace in so many other ways. It sponsors terrorism across the middle east, and threatens our own country with sophisticated plots. What work is taking place across Government to respond to the threats posed to dissidents in the UK, and to those with family members in Iran who face persecution as the Iranian regime seeks to threaten and blackmail them? What more will the Minister do to take down the finance structures propping up the regime’s destabilising activities, and to stand with the brave people of Iran, including human rights defenders, who face the most barbaric oppression? With the Iranian regime and its terrorist proxies in a weakened state due to Israel and America’s actions, does he agree that this is a moment for the Government to publish a serious strategy to roll back the regime’s malign influence?

Finally, can the Minister give an update on the discussions he has had with partners about the US-led plans for a ceasefire in Gaza, freeing the hostages, aid access and securing the removal of Hamas?

[Mr Falconer]

I thank the right hon. Lady for her questions. I am afraid I will not provide a detailed commentary from the Dispatch Box on the extent of the damage from the strikes, for reasons that I am sure she and the rest of the House understand. I can confirm that we are in discussions about the snapback mechanism. As the Prime Minister, the Foreign Secretary and I have said, we cannot see Iran getting a nuclear weapon. Snapback is an important lever, and we are talking with our E3 partners and the Americans about what role snapback can play. We hope to see a diplomatic solution, which is ultimately the most enduring way to ensure that Iran does not get a nuclear weapon, but we will continue to consider all diplomatic tools, including snapback.

The right hon. Lady asked a range of other important questions. I confirm that we keep regional security questions, particularly in relation to our bases, under close review. Since I last had an opportunity to face her across the Dispatch Box, there have clearly been quite a few changes in relation to events in the region, including in our travel advice. I recognise that this has been a fraught period for those with interests in the region. I am glad to see the ceasefire between Iran and Israel hold. We are encouraged by the reports on the efforts to secure a Gaza ceasefire, but I am not in a position to provide much further commentary at this stage from the Dispatch Box, and I will not go any further than we have already gone from the Dispatch Box on the strikes against Iran.

British Indian Ocean Territory: Sovereignty

Priti Patel Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd July 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 ratification of the UK-Mauritius treaty on 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. 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 the signature, this treaty secures the strategically important UK-US military base on the island of Diego Garcia. The Diego Garcia military base is essential to the security of the UK and our key allies, including the United States, and is essential to keeping the British people safe. It is also one of our most significant contributions to the transatlantic defence and security partnership.

The base enables rapid deployment of operations and forces across the middle east, east Africa and south Asia, helping combat some of the most challenging threats, including from terrorism and hostile states, and it has a unique strategic location. The treaty ensures that the UK retains complete operational control of Diego Garcia well into the next century. It has robust security measures that prevent threats from the outer islands of the archipelago, including: a 24 nautical mile buffer zone where nothing can be built or placed without UK consent; a rigorous process to prevent activities on the wider islands; a strict ban on foreign security forces on the outer islands, whether civilian or military; and a binding obligation to ensure the base is never undermined. These robust provisions give the UK an effective veto over any activity that presents a clear and direct threat to the base on Diego Garcia, and they will categorically prevent our adversaries from compromising the base.

The treaty sets out that it can be ratified once both parties have completed their relevant domestic processes, and for the UK this of course includes scrutiny of the treaty by Parliament and making the necessary changes to domestic law. The treaty was laid before the House on the day of signature for scrutiny under the usual process set out in the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010. We welcome the report into the treaty by the International Agreements Committee in the other place, which recognised the importance of ratifying the treaty to secure the base, and the debate on Monday in the other place in which peers rejected a cynical Conservative motion to block ratification.

Nevertheless, before the treaty is ratified, the Government will also bring forward primary legislation, as I have said on many occasions, which will be scrutinised and debated in the usual way, and secondary legislation as necessary. Ahead of ratification, the Government will also make a ministerial statement in both Houses, providing a factual update on Chagossian eligibility for resettlement and on the modalities of the Chagossian trust fund. That will also enable further discussion in a proper manner. The treaty will then enter into force on the first day of the month following the date on which both parties have exchanged letters confirming these processes are complete.

This landmark agreement secures the future of our strategically critical UK-US military base on Diego Garcia. It is, as I said, a crucial contribution to the defence and security partnerships that we hold. As the Defence Secretary told this House, there was no alternative but to act, and in so doing we have protected Britons at home and overseas. [Interruption.] If the Opposition do not recognise that fact, why did they start negotiating in the first place?

[Priti Patel (Witham) (Con)]

Thank you, Mr Speaker for granting this urgent question. With the 21-day CRAG process about to conclude, it is a disgrace that Labour has breached the parliamentary conventions and denied the House a meaningful debate and vote on ratification. The Minister says that we will get a vote on the Bill, but having a vote on the Bill is not the same as voting on a treaty under CRAG.

Earlier this week, the House of Lords had a debate and vote, where the Lib Dems sided with Labour in backing this £30 billion surrender treaty, which is subsidising tax cuts in Mauritius. Why cannot we have a debate and vote in this House? What are Ministers afraid of? Are they afraid that their Back Benchers, now worried about benefit cuts and the impact of unpopular tax rises, will question why so much money is being handed over for a territory that we own and will force them into another embarrassing U-turn? Are they afraid that MPs across the House will do the maths even, and see that the actual amount of money going to Mauritius will be at least £30 billion and not the £3.4 billion accountancy valuation claim that Ministers talk about? Are they afraid that Labour’s barefaced hypocrisy and appalling treatment of the Chagossian community will be exposed?

The Minister once said:

“The people of Chagos must be at the heart of decisions about their future” —[Official Report, 28 October 2015; Vol. 601, c. 192WH.]

but this surrender treaty betrays them. He has betrayed them, leaving any decisions on resettlement and support through the trust fund in the hands of Mauritius.

With a legal case ongoing, will the Minister extend the CRAG process until all legal challenges have concluded? Will the Minister finally admit that Labour made October’s bad deal even weaker by giving up the unilateral right to extend the lease on the base and ditching the clause authorising the UK to exercise sovereign rights? The Prime Minister of Mauritius has said that it has done that, so will the Minister finally admit it? Will the Minister confirm that there are no guarantees that the current levels of marine protections will continue?

There is too much ambiguity; we have not had clarity. There are no guarantees on security or on safeguarding, unanswered questions about notification requirements around the base, and no guarantees that Mauritius will not pursue further lawfare to stop operations at the base if it thinks they contravene international law, including trying to block nuclear weapons, as the Pelindaba treaty now applies to the Chagos islands. The Minister should scrap this treaty or at least have the courage to bring it here for a proper debate, full scrutiny and finally a vote in this House.

Oral Answers to Questions

Priti Patel Excerpts

Tuesday 24th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

[Priti Patel (Witham) (Con)]

The humanitarian situation in Gaza simply cannot continue. We have spent a lot of time in this House discussing the extent of that situation and the fact that food and essential supplies are not getting through to support innocent victims. What proposals has the Minister put to Israel about the opening of specific crossing points for aid delivery into Gaza? Will he give his assessment of why the Israeli Government may not be listening to this country and our Government on this particular issue?

[Mr Falconer]

The disagreement that the Israeli Government have is not simply with the British Government; it is with a wide range of their partners. As the right hon. Lady is aware, we signed a statement with 26 partners about the humanitarian situation. We made a leader-level statement with France and Canada. There is wide disagreement with the approach that the Israeli Government are taking in relation to aid distribution. At the weekend, the Foreign Secretary discussed these matters, including entry points, with the Foreign Minister of Israel. We would like to see the Israeli Government shift position. It is clear, for the reasons that she says, that that shift must come urgently.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Foreign Secretary.

[Priti Patel (Witham) (Con)]

Ukraine has bravely fought back Putin’s illegal invasion, and that is with our undoubted support. Will the Foreign Secretary give an update on what action is under way to release the billions of pounds of frozen Russian assets? On the subject of Russian threats and malign influence, he will be alarmed to know that the political opposition leaders in Georgia have been arrested and imprisoned this week. What steps are the Government taking in response, and will further sanctions be considered to curtail Putin’s absolute abuse of democracy in Europe?

[Mr Lammy]

The Minister responsible for Europe, my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty), has condemned what took place in Georgia over the last few days, and I endorse that condemnation. On the issue of Russian assets, we are engaged particularly with European colleagues who are more exposed than we are. It has been right to allow new Governments in Europe to take their place and consider these issues, because they require some technical understanding, but we continue to press this issue, and it will be a topic at the NATO summit later today.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Foreign Secretary.

[Priti Patel (Witham) (Con)]

Given the clear threat that Iran poses to the United Kingdom, our allies and the middle east, does the Foreign Secretary support the actions undertaken by the United States to degrade Iran’s nuclear weapons? He will have heard that President Trump has said that Iran’s nuclear capabilities are gone. Does he welcome that?

[Mr Lammy]

It was important to be alongside Secretary of State Rubio last week in DC. We continue to work closely with President Trump, and the Prime Minister spoke to him just two days ago. The initial assessments of those attacks in Iran are coming in, and we will assess that in due course.

[Priti Patel]

Given the situation that has emerged in the middle east and the fact that the de-escalation has not taken place in recent hours, can the Foreign Secretary outline what measures he is overseeing, in what is effectively quite an urgent situation, to bring back 4,000 British nationals now stranded in Israel? He, like me, will have received overnight a large volume of correspondence from concerned families. What immediate steps will be taken? I understand that another plane is being put in place, but we are now speaking about 4,000 British nationals who are clearly stuck in Israel.

[Mr Lammy]

I was very pleased to see that that flight came into Birmingham. We will do all we can to work with the Israeli Government to open airspace and to continue flights. We have a ceasefire. I have seen, of course, that that ceasefire has been violated, and I urge all partners to keep to that ceasefire so that airspace can open up and commercial flights can resume.

China Audit

Priti Patel Excerpts

Tuesday 24th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Priti Patel (Witham) (Con)]

I am grateful to the Foreign Secretary for advance sight of his statement, and I look forward to reading the audit and receiving the detailed briefings that clearly cannot be put in the public domain.

Let us be clear: China thinks that its way is the best and only way, and its leaders are on an international quest for global governance and for its frightening authoritarian model to supersede ours. Ours is one of democracy, openness and standing up for freedom and values.

China has been ramping up its military with alarming conviction, including conventional nuclear and space capabilities, and it is a critical enabler of Russia’s illegal invasion of Ukraine—we saw President Xi standing side by side with Putin in Moscow just weeks ago—so be in no doubt that China and Russia are collaborating across all domains to undermine our very democratic freedoms and the west. Beijing tramples on the Sino-British declaration in Hong Kong, threatens British national overseas passport holders on British soil and has imprisoned Jimmy Lai—a British national—through an awful, politically motivated trial.

Beijing’s unjustified aggression in the South China sea is dangerous, and it unacceptably intimidates and challenges the sovereignty of its neighbours in the Indo-Pacific. It is consistently and constantly threatening the peace-seeking democracy of Taiwan while committing the most appalling human rights abuses in Xinjiang. It also applies hybrid and grey-zone techniques against Britain, including malign cyber-activity directed at our democratic institutions and sanctioning our very own Members of Parliament, all the while exploiting vulnerable countries through its belt and road initiative. China also flagrantly brushes aside economic rules and steals intellectual property. It has developed sophisticated models to acquire strategic assets around the world.

Despite all of that, it has taken the Government a year to produce this audit, which seemingly fails to set out any kind of serious strategic framework. I think it is fair to say that we know why: it is because the Government—in fact, the Foreign Secretary touched on this—have gone cap in hand to China to bail out their terrible handling of the British economy. They are setting up closer economic ties with China while knowing very well that British businesses are struggling not just in competing against China, but to absorb the weight of Labour’s own regulatory costs.

We have not heard it in the statement, but can the Foreign Secretary name a single area where measurable, tangible progress has been made in advancing critical British interests with China, whether on national security, economic practices, climate or human rights? He failed to mention that Members of this House have been sanctioned by China.

We have seen signs of naivety from the Government—consistently, if I may say so. [Interruption.] Within one day of the Prime Minister meeting President Xi, he effectively held that as an opportunity to bring about a strong and consistent relationship in which surprises would be avoided. Within the following few days, 45 pro-democracy campaigners were jailed in Hong Kong, following a very harsh application of the draconian national security law. That is completely unacceptable.

What is the Foreign Secretary’s actual strategy to deter China from systematically extinguishing freedoms in Hong Kong? Will he commit to using the full weight of the Government machine to do more to protect BNOs and Hongkongers who suffer outrageous transnational repression in the UK, rather than just issuing guidance and training?

The Government have constantly and suspiciously backed the application for China’s new super-embassy in London. Why are the Foreign Secretary and the Government not showing the same backbone that their Irish and Australian counterparts showed when they saw fit to block embassy planning applications from Russia, which they deemed too risky for national security?

Do the Government have a practical strategy to deter Chinese efforts to capture Taiwan by military means or by stealth, or to oppose the human rights abuses in Xinjiang? What is the Foreign Secretary’s end goal and what are the means of getting there? What will he do to find new critical minerals supply chains in order to reduce reliance on Chinese trade? With that, what will the Government do now to move Jimmy Lai’s case on to an urgent footing, away from the complex consular case handling that it seems to have in the Foreign Office?

The Government need to urgently sort out some of the grave contradictions mentioned in the Foreign Secretary’s statement, and I will highlight a few. We heard him speak about the China audit underlining

“the extent of Beijing’s support for the Kremlin.”

We do not question or doubt that, but some action is needed. The statement also says that the audit

“reiterated that our approach to China must stay rooted both in international law and deterrence.”

How does that help Jimmy Lai at this particular moment?

We will always support the security and the defence of our country, so the Government must do much more when it comes to keeping Britain safe from China.

[Mr Lammy]

I know that the right hon. Lady can be pretty brazen, but a lecture from her about China policy should make even her blush. The Conservative party oversaw more than a decade of division, inconsistency and complacency towards China. There was no strategy, there was no plan and there was no sense of a national interest. The Intelligence and Security Committee, which was chaired by the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis), from her party, said that the actions on China had left Britain “severely handicapped” in managing our future security. The truth is that the right hon. Lady was at the centre of it.

Where was she during the ill-judged Cameron-Osborne golden age? She was the Minister for the Treasury. Where was she during the humiliating Huawei U-turn? She was Home Secretary. The Tories had their heads in the sand. Under them, Britain’s defences were weakened and our armed services hollowed out. It is a Labour Government who are investing £600 million in our intelligence services to deal with those threats; it is a Labour Government who are investing £290 million extra a year in our diplomatic capabilities in this area; it is a Labour Government who are delivering the biggest increase in defence spending since the cold war; and it is a Labour Government who are making Britain secure at home and strong abroad.

I refer the right hon. Lady to page 28 of the strategic defence review—she clearly has not bothered to read it—which makes it clear that we of course understand that China is a “sophisticated and persistent” threat. She talks about the embassy, but she should know, as a former Home Secretary, that it is a quasi-judicial decision that has been properly made by the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government.

The right hon. Lady talks about Jimmy Lai. I met Sebastien Lai last week, and we have been raising the issue on every single occasion. A trial is ongoing, so let us see how it will complete. She raises transnational aggression. We are the ones updating our state threats legislation because the Conservatives left the gaps and did nothing when in power. She raises the situation in Russia and the Chinese supplying Russia with dual-use goods. Who has done the sanctions? There have been five rounds of sanctions under me as Foreign Secretary. What did the Conservatives do? I will take no lectures on this subject from them, who know that, as a Government, they were found wanting on the question of threats from the Chinese.