Middle East
Priti Patel Excerpts(2 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Priti Patel (Witham) (Con)
Iran is the world’s leading state sponsor of terrorism. It is now over 100 days since this conflict began, yet Iran continues to pose the most dangerous and significant threat to the middle east, peace and security and the interests of Britain and our allies and friends in the region. In recent days, we have seen the most appalling Iranian attack in Kuwait, causing injury and death at Kuwait International airport, and we have seen Iran launch missiles towards Israel. It continues to obstruct the movement of goods through the strait of Hormuz, seeking to hold us all to economic ransom; it refuses to end its nuclear weapons programme; it carries on oppressing its citizens, having butchered thousands already this year; and it continues to sponsor and support terrorist proxies throughout the region, causing bloodshed from Lebanon to Yemen and Gaza. It has shown no interest at all in pursuing peace, and it laughs in the face of sanctions.
No one in this House should have any shred of sympathy for the Iranian regime, which has caused so much terror and has blood on its hands. Iran has been the root cause of immense suffering in the middle east for far too long, in places where it has no business whatsoever—as the President of Lebanon has said in recent days, Lebanon is not Iran’s country. Can the Foreign Secretary confirm whether British assets in the region were involved in any interception efforts over the weekend, and what does this latest attack mean for our defence posture in the region?
It is all very well for the Government to call on Iran to exercise restraint, but that has never stopped it from carrying out its hostile attacks, which keep on increasing. Will there be any material consequences for Iran from Britain, such as a new wave of sanctions to further ratchet up the pressure? We on the Conservative Benches have been calling for new sanctions to prevent senior figures in the despotic Iranian regime parking their wealth in London, and to ensure that Britain cannot be a sanctuary for the forces of repression if those linked to the regime seek to flee Iran. Will the Foreign Secretary commit to taking both those actions?
As I said in the House last week, Iran’s terrorist proxy Hezbollah must be disarmed. It has caused immense suffering in Lebanon and Israel. We need to see UN Security Council resolution 1701 implemented in full, and Hezbollah must comply. When I raised that in the House last week, the Minister for the Middle East, the hon. Member for Lincoln (Mr Falconer), said in response that
“it must be the Lebanese Government who disarm Hezbollah.”—[Official Report, 3 June 2026; Vol. 786, c. 1189.]
He is absolutely right, but he did not say what support Britain is giving to the Lebanese Government now, because we all know that they cannot do it on their own. Are the Government going beyond the traditional support that Britain has offered the Lebanese armed forces—for example by offering technical and intelligence assistance? The Foreign Secretary said nothing in her statement on disarming Hezbollah, so can she tell the House what the Government are doing?
More broadly, we hope that the ceasefires in the region can lead to a sustainable end to the conflict without a resumption of fighting, but we all know that the situation remains incredibly precarious. Specifically on the Iran ceasefire, can the Foreign Secretary update the House on what involvement, if any, the Government are having behind the scenes in mediation efforts? Has she personally seen the outline of the apparently “close” peace deal or had any input into it? Has she discussed it at all with Secretary Rubio?
The Foreign Secretary has today announced a package of measures on the west bank, Gaza and the 20-point peace plan. We all want to see an end to violence and conflict in the west bank and in Gaza. In particular, she has made important points on aid and the fact that humanitarian aid and support are not getting through. What critical discussions have the Government been having with the parties involved to see progress in this area? Can she tell the House what the changing guidance on trade will mean in practice? What are the practical effects of the sanctions announced today?
The Foreign Secretary has mentioned asking the Charity Commission to investigate certain charities. What evidence has prompted that particular request? Will she be asking the Charity Commission to investigate charities in the UK that are supporting Iran and terrorism? Is the £10 million for the Palestinian Authority new money or is it from existing resources that are already allocated? Can she update the House on the steps being taken to reform the PA and stop the pay-to-slay mechanisms?
Iran is not alone; it is backed by the authoritarian axis that we all speak about too much in this House. The Foreign Secretary has just been to one of those states—China—in a desperate attempt to get economic crumbs to bail out Labour from its disastrous handling of the economy. The House is fully aware of China’s role in supporting Iran, including by providing offensive capabilities. The FCDO press release following the Foreign Secretary’s visit states that she
“stressed the urgency of reopening the Strait of Hormuz without tolls or charges, preventing nuclear proliferation in Iran and maintaining stability in the wider Middle East.”
Did China’s Foreign Minister show any willingness to put pressure on Iran to reopen the strait and to stop the illegal and reckless attacks that we are seeing? Did the Foreign Secretary raise concerns over China’s enabling of Iran’s offensive attacks?
There was no mention in the Foreign Secretary’s statement or the press release from the Foreign Office of Jimmy Lai, which raises significant questions for his family. Did she call for his immediate release and for an end to his politically motivated show trial? Did she threaten consequences if that did not happen?
Finally, and without wanting to segue on to something too far away from the middle east, the Foreign Office also claims that the Foreign Secretary urged China “to end economic support” for Russia’s illegal invasion of Ukraine, but will any undertakings be forthcoming? China is a critical enabler of Putin’s war, and we cannot simply turn a blind eye to that.
Yvette Cooper
Let me begin with the points that the shadow Foreign Secretary raised on Iran. We agree, I think, on the dangers and risks from Iran. We have seen the threats and the unprovoked strikes against the Gulf and against our Gulf partners, as well as attacks on civilian infrastructure and energy infrastructure and the operations and attacks through proxies across the region and more widely, including the attacks on Israel. That is why we have extensive sanctions against Iran, and why we have always been clear that under no circumstances must Iran be allowed to get or develop nuclear weapons. The UK, along with France and Germany, led the approach to the snapback restoration of sanctions against Iran in the autumn at the United Nations. We have also, because we recognise some of the threats from not just Iran but other state-backed organisations—including threats here in the UK—been working intensively, led by the Home Office, to draw up state threats legislation that we hope will pass swiftly through the House.
The shadow Foreign Secretary asked about the business advice. There can be no doubt that it is not just about the construction of the E1 settlements—we must discourage any settlement and any involvement of businesses in the construction, as several world leaders have said—but goes more widely. In the business advice, we are clear that we are against any economic or financial activity in those illegal settlements, because they undermine the prospects for peace and security for Israel and Palestine alike.
The shadow Foreign Secretary returned to the potential for an agreement about the strait. We desperately want to see an agreement. We are keeping in close touch with all those involved, including the mediators. I have had many discussions with Secretary of State Rubio. We are not direct participants in the negotiations—that is directly for the US and Iran and the mediators—but we are doing anything we can do to support that process and to pursue a settlement that ensures not simply a partial opening of the strait, but the full recognition of the principle of freedom of navigation and the underpinning of international law. As a maritime trading nation, we should always champion that principle. I have raised that issue directly in China and in India, and I specifically discussed with them the importance of maintaining unconditional support for freedom of navigation. In those discussions, including in China, they have recognised the importance of having no tolls on the strait of Hormuz. I have urged them to put any pressure they can on Iran to comply and to come to an agreement.
The shadow Foreign Secretary asked about Jimmy Lai. Of course I raised Jimmy Lai. We want to see him released urgently, and we have made that position clear in this House, and I made that position clear again with the Chinese authorities. We will continue to do so. I will also be keeping in close touch with Jimmy Lai’s family, because we take the case so seriously.
The shadow Foreign Secretary asked about Russia and Ukraine. I have to be honest that we have a difference of view with China on this one. We have been clear about the importance of our total solidarity with Ukraine and its people, because ultimately, Russia’s threat to Ukraine’s security is also a threat to Europe’s security and the UK’s security. I have made those points clear to the Chinese Government. As part of my visit, I also raised those issues directly with the Indian Government, who also take a different view from the UK on this crucial issue of Russia and Ukraine. We will continue to make those points.
It is important, as part of our security, that we engage with some of the biggest countries around the world on those global security issues. It is not simply about economic or trading relationships; it is about our security. Our security is strengthened if we engage with, for example, China on these issues, whether on the strait or on issues to do with Russia and Ukraine. We will raise those differences and disagreements not only because it is in line with our principles and in line with our commitment to international law, but because it is in the interests of our security and keeping people safe at home.
Russian Attacks on Civilian Infrastructure
Priti Patel Excerpts(1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Priti Patel (Witham) (Con)
This has been a sobering and devastating week in Ukraine. Britain must continue to stand with Ukraine in its fight for freedom and sovereignty and back it against the evil and heinous acts we have seen, which are constantly committed by Putin.
The latest barbaric acts from Putin and Russia have led them to brutally target civilian infrastructure in Ukraine. The world has once again witnessed his cold-blooded actions: we have all seen bodies of civilians being pulled from rubble and the deaths of young people and children. We have seen all that in the news this week. We have also witnessed his war machine hitting targets in Romania, one of our NATO allies. Putin’s barbaric war of aggression continues. He has demonstrated his complete and utter lack of interest in de-escalation or pursuing a peaceful resolution.
The Conservative party in government has a proud record of supporting Ukraine in its fight against Putin. When this Government get it right, we will support them, but the recent shameful actions to loosen sanctions on Russian oil and gas are not acceptable to us. Will the Government take action in the light of the continued threat from Putin? Would they not rather drill in the North sea than loosen sanctions on Russian oil and gas?
We see that the Russian ambassador has been summoned by the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, but how are the Government responding to Russia’s drone attack on Romania? That is a dangerous escalation. What support is being given directly to Romania and other NATO allies in the region to protect them? What action are the Government taking to tackle the Russian shadow fleet as it continues to slip through our waters?
What work is the Foreign Secretary doing with the Ministry of Defence to ensure that both the RAF and the Royal Navy are equipped and prepared to deal with Russian proxies passing through our waters? When is the coalition of the willing next due to meet? What actions are being taken to further target Putin’s ability to wage war? What proposals are coming forward to bring an end to this conflict? The UK must continue to show resolve and use every tool at its disposal to back Ukraine and our allies and defend our freedoms and values from Putin’s acts and assaults.
Seema Malhotra
I thank the shadow Foreign Secretary for her comments. She will know how important it is that we maintain support across the House for our action in supporting Ukraine and putting pressure on Russia. That sends an important message to Putin from the whole of Parliament that we stand in solidarity with Ukraine.
It is important to recognise the work we are doing on sanctions. I disagree with the right hon. Lady’s characterisation of what we have done; I outlined how we have actually strengthened sanctions. In addition, on 26 May the UK sanctioned cryptocurrency exchanges operating in Russia along with entities and individuals suspected of links to the UK-sanctioned A7 network. It is important to recognise that we must continue to keep all our sanctions under review and strengthen them where we can.
The right hon. Lady’s contribution emphasises the need to commit to achieving an unconditional ceasefire. The attacks on Ukraine and the drone attack on Romania are unacceptable, but it is important to say that it is Russia that is stalling and backtracking. Putin has continued to repeat ultra-maximalist demands that would end Ukraine’s existence as a sovereign independent state, while dragging out talks and escalating his aggression against Ukraine. We, however, will continue to work with international partners, as we do every week, to ensure that Ukraine gets the military and financial support it needs to defend itself and to ramp up the economic pressure on Russia in order to force Putin to de-escalate the war and engage in meaningful talks.
Lebanon: Israel Defence Forces Operations
Priti Patel Excerpts(1 week, 1 day ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Priti Patel (Witham) (Con)
Lebanese Hezbollah is an Iranian-backed terrorist organisation that, for too long, has caused harm to the Lebanese people, undermined the Government of Lebanon and threatened Israel. It is also part of a terror network that threatens our interests and security, and those of our friends in the middle east. The House should be in no doubt that Hezbollah continues to undermine efforts to secure peace in the region, and fails to comply with the terms of the 2024 Israel-Lebanon ceasefire. What is the Minister’s assessment of Hezbollah’s actions when it comes to violating the ceasefire, and of the support that it has received from Iran? Does he agree that the interests of peace are best served by Hezbollah being permanently disarmed?
The current conflict has caused terrible hardship in Lebanon and Israel, and the UK Government must use their influence and diplomacy in the region to help bring this to an end. We must see this conflict come to an end. Can the Minister tell us what direct discussions have taken place with representatives in Israel, Lebanon and the US Administration on the terms of a lasting ceasefire? What are the British Government doing to support the disarming of Hezbollah? What contributions and practical efforts are being made to fully implement the UN Security Council resolution 1701?
Much of this leads back to the architect of so much disturbance in the middle east—Iran—so I will conclude my remarks by joining the Minister in condemning the strikes that took place today in Kuwait. Iran cannot carry on persisting in the way it is as a state sponsor of terrorism.
Mr Falconer
The shadow Foreign Secretary makes a range of important points, including on the enormous and continued harm that Hezbollah does to the people of Lebanon, as indeed it continues to attempt to do to the people of Israel. It is completely unacceptable that communities in the north of Israel continue to face barrages of missiles and drones. We have called repeatedly for Hezbollah to stop; what it does harms Lebanon as much as Israel.
We have discussed in detail, with the Lebanese armed forces and the leadership of Lebanon, the progress that must be made in disarming Hezbollah. There has been a lot of commentary about the phasing and sequencing of those efforts over the last few months, but it must be the Lebanese Government who disarm Hezbollah. That is the only way that the Hezbollah issue can be properly dealt with. The Government of Lebanon are brave and courageous people in whom we have very considerable confidence. President Aoun, who I was in contact with today, is taking very important steps to try to safeguard his country and its future, and we must support him. He, his Government and his armed forces must monopolise force in Lebanon, not Hezbollah and not the IDF.
Middle East
Priti Patel Excerpts(3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Priti Patel (Witham) (Con)
The conflict and crisis in the middle east continues to be felt in Britain and overseas. The Government must use all their diplomatic leverage and economic might to pursue a path of peace and stability in the region that protects the interests of Britain, our allies and our partners.
In response to the Minister’s remarks about the situation in Israel, we expect full diplomatic and consular access to be made available to British nationals. The Minister knows that progressing the peace plan in Gaza requires productive engagement from the British Government, not just talk. The Government have no role in the board of peace, so what are the Government doing to bring to the table support for the reconstruction for civilians, the removal of Hamas’s terrorist infrastructure that we know about, and the removal of Hamas from power? Can the Minister tell the House when he or the Foreign Secretary last engaged with the leadership team of the Coordinator of Government Activities in the Territories and the Civil-Military Coordination Centre on aid entering Gaza for those innocent civilians? Can he confirm to the House the quantum of aid that is going to Gaza through these routes? He himself has said that the situation is desperate and we all need to see more aid going through. He must recognise that having a functioning relationship with the Government of Israel is key to advancing those important humanitarian and peace priorities.
Will the Minister tell the House what action he is taking to support the disarmament of Hezbollah, the terrorist proxy of the Iranian regime? He touched on the situation between Israel and Lebanon. That can only be sustained with the right outcomes when the threats posed by Hezbollah are dealt with. What is his assessment of the situation between Israel and Lebanon?
On Iran, we all want the ceasefire to lead to the right outcome when it comes to ending the conflict and the regional issue we are all faced with. It is vital that the war ends in such a way that works for the British national interest, but also for the western interest and that of our security allies and friends in the middle east who are on the frontline day in, day out, including the UAE which has come under fire again in recent weeks and days. What involvement have the Government had in any discussions and negotiations? Does the Minister agree that the despotic, murderous Iranian regime must de-escalate and act in a constructive way going forward?
On the Conservative Benches, we do not have intelligence on Iran’s exact nuclear programme, its capabilities or what it is doing internally in its own country, but clearly whatever remains of the existing programme must be dismantled. The enriched uranium it currently has must be removed and lessons must be learnt from where Iran exploited the 2015 agreement. Can the Minister confirm that that is the Government’s position? Clarity from the Government on that totemic issue is really important. What is the Government’s position on Iran’s ballistic and military capability?
The Government have talked a great deal about their position on the strait of Hormuz, yet we have not seen any change in the situation, or, to this day, practical measures from the United Kingdom. The strait of Hormuz cannot be treated as a bargaining tool and no country or company should be forced to line the coffers of the despicable regime in Tehran. No country should have the power to shut down a global artery of international commerce and trade. Are the British Government actually putting any pressure at all on Iran to restore freedom of navigation? At the very least, surely, there should be new sanctions to tighten the screws on this appalling regime and a total ban on regime officials who might want to flee to the UK, as well as a concerted effort to go after the regime elites who might attempt to park their wealth in London? We know about their assets and I have raised these points previously with the Minister. Given the sickening recruitment call from the Iranian embassy in recent weeks, why have the Government only summoned the ambassador for a slap on the wrist? Surely the Home Office must now intervene on the proscription of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps?
On the long overdue UK-Gulf Cooperation Council free trade agreement, which we welcome, the Minister will know that those negotiations had been under way for many, many years and that it is an important Brexit opportunity. That could be at risk with his ministerial colleagues and the Labour leadership candidates planning to take us back into the EU all over again.
Finally, the Conservatives stand firmly in support of British interests across the middle east, which must be safeguarded. We must use our important influence in the region to effectively protect Britain, but also our allies, from those who want to continue to cause harm to the United Kingdom and to our friends and allies in the middle east.
Mr Falconer
I am grateful to the shadow Foreign Secretary for the constructive tone of her questions. Let me turn to the important question of consular access, which she raised at the outset. To be clear to the House, and to all right hon. and hon. Members who have constituents involved, we are seeking from the Israeli authorities both consular access to our nationals, as they would expect, and assurances about their good treatment. We understand that British nationals are expected to be deported back to the UK imminently. We are obviously following that up rapidly. If colleagues across the House have concerns, they are very welcome to raise them with me. We are, of course, as I said in the statement, in direct contact with those families who have approached the Foreign Office directly.
I can reassure the shadow Foreign Secretary that we are heavily engaged in the efforts she describes in relation to Gaza, both on reconstruction and on ensuring that adequate aid gets into Gaza. As I was clear in the statement, the amount of aid getting in remains inadequate and the restrictions remain contrary to the 20-point plan. We are pushing those points with Israeli authorities, as she would expect, and with all those with an interest in Gaza. That includes COGAT and CMCC, which she mentioned, and some of the new institutions formed under the Board of Peace—I saw High Representative Mladenov in Brussels and am in regular contact with him. It also includes the important discussions about the disarmament of Hamas. Similarly, we remain in regular discussions about the importance of demonstrating real progress in Lebanon on the disarmament of Lebanese Hezbollah. I discussed that with the Lebanese Foreign Minister just this week.
I am happy to say more about the sanctions that we have put in place already. I came to this House to announce some sanctions in October 2025. Those were precisely targeted on senior regime assets in the UK, which included significant restrictions on property ownership, which the right hon. Lady is aware of, up to a total value of £140 million. Given the serious nature of the topic, I will resist entering into discussion about Brexit. Whether or not the GCC FTA is long overdue, it was a negotiation started by Members now on the Opposition Benches, and it is a great pleasure for us to conclude it from the Government Benches.
Oral Answers to Questions
Priti Patel Excerpts(1 month, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Priti Patel (Witham) (Con)
The barbaric regime in Tehran has murdered tens of thousands of its own people. It remains the world’s foremost state sponsor of terrorism and is responsible for appalling antisemitism, and for spying on the British Jewish community. Why did the Government not stop Iran from being appointed to prominent positions in the United Nations Economic and Social Council, as the United States did? If Iran is found to be behind the disgusting attacks on Jewish sites in recent weeks in London, will the Government move forward with the proscription of the IRGC, and act against any financial institutions in the UK that are involved in funding state-sponsored terrorist activity in the UK?
Priti Patel (Witham) (Con)
This morning, we heard Sir Olly Robbins say that there was a “dismissive attitude” and an atmosphere of pressure from No. 10 towards security vetting due to its desire to get Mandelson in post as soon as possible. Given Sir Olly’s account, why did the Foreign Secretary lose confidence in him last week? Surely the Prime Minister passed the buck for his own failures and appalling judgment.
Yvette Cooper
The starting point was the appointment of Peter Mandelson; he should never have been appointed to his post. The Prime Minister made that clear, and has apologised not just to the House but, more importantly, to the victims of Epstein, which is where that apology should lie. The right hon. Lady will know that Ministers have a responsibility to provide accurate information to the House and to ensure that we get that information from officials. Ministers, including the former Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister, should have been told about the UK Security Vetting conclusions and recommendation, which I think was relevant information that should have been provided to the House in September.
Priti Patel
Like the Prime Minister, the Foreign Secretary will be aware that Peter Mandelson was on the board of Sistema alongside Russian spies. Has she now checked whether the concerns raised during vetting related to Mandelson’s business links with enemies of the United Kingdom, including Russia and China? Has she asked for the details of the mitigations Sir Olly mentioned this morning and whether they were put in place around Mandelson? Does she know what kompromat our enemies have on him, and is she reviewing all his activities as ambassador for any compromise of UK national security?
Yvette Cooper
I have been informed of the conclusions of the UK Security Vetting report and assessment and its recommendation; I have not seen the detailed content of its report. I do think there is a distinction between the individual personal information that is provided and the conclusion and recommendations UKSV provides. The right hon. Lady will know that the Prime Minister has instigated a full investigation by Sir Adrian Fulford into this entire process and what was known, as well as the whole vetting process. Information is also being provided to the Intelligence and Security Committee.
Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill
Priti Patel Excerpts(1 month, 4 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Priti Patel (Witham) (Con)
Let me start my remarks by saying that the Minister has done the right thing by coming to the House to give this statement, rather than being dragged here through an urgent question, and by stating the factual and accurate position that the treaty will not go forward. However, once again he has been left carrying the can for the Prime Minister’s epic failure of statecraft. Labour’s Chagos surrender has been wrong from the start, and instead of making excuses, the right thing to do would have been to tear up this dreadful treaty and commit to keeping Chagos British. The news that the ratification of the treaty is now done and dusted is a humiliation for the Prime Minister and this Government.
Let us be clear: the surrender treaty is Labour’s mess. As the House knows, within days of coming to office, the Prime Minister’s top foreign policy priority was to exceed the wishes of his left-wing lawyer friends and surrender the Chagos islands, at an enormous cost to British taxpayers. He met the Mauritian Prime Minister, appointed Jonathan Powell to conclude the negotiations, and rushed and blundered into the treaty. The Government inexplicably announced it to the world just before Mauritius went into an election. When the Mauritian Government with whom they agreed the deal got kicked out, the new Mauritian Government—guess what?—demanded more concessions from Britain, and Labour rolled over and got eaten for breakfast. The Government put one of our most important defence and security assets at risk. They compromised the special relationship with the United States, they ignored and betrayed the wishes of the Chagossian community, and they were prepared to hand over £35 billion of taxpayers’ money to lease back a land that we own. Then they went ahead with the deal before receiving the critical exchange of notes from the United States.
Having been to the United States recently, I am not in the least surprised that the Administration have sought to stop the deal, because they can see what we have been saying for a long time. It is the Conservatives who have opposed this Labour deal at every turn. While Labour has spectacularly failed to defend British sovereignty and Reform has gone from suggesting that we sell the Chagos islands to the US to suggesting that we give them to the Maldives, the Conservative party has been effectively scrutinising and opposing this surrender at every step of the way, to make sure that we keep Chagos British and that we protect our sovereignty and our taxpayers.
It is the Conservatives who have exposed the full £35 billion cost of the deal. It is the Conservatives who have dismantled Labour’s outrageous and offensive narrative that those who oppose the Chagos surrender are siding with Britain’s adversaries. It is the Conservatives who have brought to the fore the major security concerns about this deal and exposed the fact that Mauritius is deepening its partnerships with Russia, China and Iran. It is the Conservatives who have been pressing the Government for months on their totally inadequate answers about why the anti-nuclear Pelindaba treaty would apply to Diego Garcia. And it is the Conservatives who have supported the Chagossians at every step of the way, given them a voice and spoken up for them.
Our questions and debates in this House and the other place have held Labour to account and forced the Government into the position set out today. Although the surrender and the whole process have now been ripped up, I want to ask the Minister some fundamental questions. The Mauritian Government have announced that a UK delegation is going to Mauritius later this month. Will the Minister tell us who is going, and what is the purpose? What will they be negotiating? Is there a new timetable? What is actually going to happen?
We also know that Mauritius has budgeted to receive the surrender payments from the British Government, so can the Minister confirm that no payments will be made to Mauritius as a result of what he has announced today? Will the Labour Government commit to spending the money that they were planning to ship to Mauritius on boosting defence spending at this critical time, which is exactly what the British taxpayer wants? It should now be clearly allocated for the purpose of this fundamental resource.
Can the Minister confirm in no uncertain terms that as long as the US opposes this deal, Labour will not seek in any way to reinstate it? On the Chagossians, if the islands stay British, is it the Government’s intention to look at resettlement options? Will the Minister rule out any new legislation in the next Session, even if it is not in the King’s Speech, so that the surrender treaty cannot become operable? The only Bill that the Government should take forward in the next Session is my original Bill to make sure that Chagos remains British.
Stephen Doughty
I will start by thanking the right hon. Lady, who has rightly scrutinised many different aspects of this matter over many months. I have come dutifully to answer many questions, I have met with her privately, and the subject has been scrutinised by many Committees. It was right to update the House today on these developments, and I am glad that she acknowledges that point.
Of course, it is not for the Government simply to choose easy paths. It is for the Government to choose the right path: the path that is in the interests of Britain and our national security, and that of our allies. At the heart of this is a fundamental question. The Opposition know that there is a huge challenge. They knew that there was a problem, which is why they started the process. Throughout all the exchanges we have had, they have never been able to answer that simple question.
I cannot recall a time when we have seen so much misinformation and, quite frankly, negligent disregard for the national interests and security of the British people. It is regrettable that the official Opposition and indeed the Reform party—I see that only one of its Members has turned up today—have been at the heart of this. Of course, they will say that this is just politics and that the Government should be thick-skinned, but quite frankly the British public deserve better.
The national interest is what drives this Government and our national security, as the Conservatives well knew, which is why they started the process. We have seen frankly ludicrous disinformation about the operations of the base, about the genuine threats that it faced, and about the security provisions in the treaty, which of course we strengthened. We also seen it about the costs: no matter how often they give false figures, that does not make them any more accurate. We have also seen it about the views of Chagossians—I accept that they are wide and varied but, conveniently, the Opposition always ignore the views of the significant numbers of Chagossian communities and groups who feel very differently about the treaty and have supported it since the start. Indeed, we have seen it about the protection of the environment.
The Opposition operate in a state of convenient amnesia, but they know the reality, they knew the jeopardy facing the base and they know that they presided over 11 rounds of negotiations. They published it in ministerial statements and in records of meetings with the Mauritian Prime Minister. They know, too, that the treaty signed by this Government was born of their policy choices and their negotiation mandates. As ever, the Opposition cannot run away fast enough from their record in government when it suits their tiresome politicking. The British people are not fooled. They can see the hypocrisy, and they deserve better.
Middle East
Priti Patel Excerpts(2 months, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
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(2 months, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
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(3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
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(3 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
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.