British Indian Ocean Territory: Sovereignty
Priti Patel Excerpts(1 week, 1 day 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 he will provide an update on the negotiations between His Majesty’s Government and the Government of Mauritius over the future sovereignty of the British Indian Ocean Territory.
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Stephen Doughty)
I thank the right hon. Lady for her question. We welcome yesterday’s reiteration by Prime Minister Ramgoolam of his willingness to conclude a deal with the UK. We are confident that the agreement is in both sides’ shared interests, and we will continue working with the new Mauritian Government to finalise the deal. Prime Minister Ramgoolam’s comments follow his commitment to completing the negotiations, following his election, in an exchange of letters with the Prime Minister.
As part of the usual Government-to-Government engagement, the Prime Minister’s BIOT envoy, Jonathan Powell, met PM Ramgoolam in late November to start the process, and that was followed last week by a visit to Mauritius by the UK’s chief negotiator Harriet Mathews and other officials for the talks. Those talks were productive, and it is completely understandable that the new Mauritian Government will want time to study the details.
It would not be appropriate or usual for me to give a running commentary on what was discussed during routine and private engagements, nor on any potential future engagements. I am confident, however, that we have agreed a good and fair deal that is in both sides’ interests. It protects the base at proportionate cost; it has been supported across the national security architecture in the United States and by India for those very reasons. As I have said a number of times in this House, the treaty will contain clear commitments on robust security arrangements, including preventing the presence of foreign security forces on the outer islands and ensuring the base can continue to operate securely and effectively.
The agreement is subject to finalising a treaty. Following signature, the Government will bring forward a Bill to enable implementation of that treaty. Both Houses of Parliament will have the opportunity to scrutinise that treaty before ratification.
Priti Patel
Thank you for granting this urgent question, Mr Speaker. Once again Ministers have been reluctantly dragged to the House—in fact, I have just seen the Foreign Secretary leg it. In a world of increasing danger, change and uncertainty, why are they so keen to surrender this strategic asset? We have been repeatedly told by Ministers that this is a good deal and that it has the support of the national security apparatus—we keep hearing that, but where is the evidence to justify those hollow claims?
If the deal is so good, why have the Government been so secretive about the details? Can the Minister explain? I am sorry that the Foreign Secretary has abandoned the House and not even come to this statement, because yet again we are responding to media reports. Can the Minister confirm that we will be able to extend the lease on the military base after 99 years, as reported? Will we and the US still have full autonomy of operations? What safeguards will be in place to stop other countries, including China, trying to establish themselves on the base or near the military base on Diego Garcia? How much is the British taxpayer going to be liable for each year and in total over 99 years, now that we know we will be paying for the privilege of giving away these islands? What exactly is our money going to be paying for?
The Government claim that they cannot disclose information about the lease, but surely the Minister can at least say—explain and be honest—where on earth the budget is coming from. If it is accounted for in the Budget forecast presented in the autumn—we all heard about those Budget forecasts recently—will the Minister tell us what the funding will be for the economic partnership and the trust fund for Chagossian people? Can the Minister also tell us what aspects of the deal the new Mauritian Government want reconsidering in the response? What consideration is being given to provide more funding or to weaken any protections that may be in this lease? Importantly, can he explain why the views of the Chagossian community have been so ignored?
When the whole world can see that this proposed deal was falling apart, the Foreign Secretary and this Government have tried to flog it constantly. Not only is this a monumental failure of statecraft from this Labour Government, but it is also a significant humiliation for the Foreign Secretary and his credibility and for the Prime Minister. Why are Labour putting our security at risk, ignoring Chagossians, and letting our standing go into freefall in this world?
Mr Speaker
I remind Members that these contributions should take no longer than two minutes.
Syria
Priti Patel Excerpts(2 weeks, 3 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Priti Patel (Witham) (Con)
I am grateful to the Foreign Secretary for his statement. The Conservative Government called for President Assad to go more than a decade ago, and few will shed any tears at this vile tyrant’s removal from office. He bears responsibility for countless deaths, the torture of his opponents, the use of chemical weapons and repression on a horrendous scale. Half a million people have died as a result of his abhorrent actions and this conflict. We all remember the shocking images, day after day, of the barbaric impact of this conflict, and the debates in this House, including the indecision of the west in responding to chemical weapon attacks, which should weigh heavily on our conscience.
While Assad may have sought sanctuary in Russia, we look to the Foreign Secretary to explain what steps will be taken to gather evidence of the crimes his reprehensible regime is responsible for and the actions being taken to bring him to face justice. In view of the situation in Syria, what is the Government’s assessment of the implications for the Syrian resettlement programme? Can he confirm that despite Assad fleeing to Russia to claim asylum, there will be no asylum claims from former members of the Assad regime in this country, many of whom will be associated with human rights abuses?
As the Foreign Secretary said, what happens next is critically important for the civilians of Syria, who have endured so much trauma and tragedy, and for the wider region. Syrians need to be protected by those now controlling territory. That means the protection of all communities, groups and minorities. The House must speak with one voice on that, and some will ask what the UK can do and what we should or should not do. There are no easy answers in the days ahead, but it is profoundly in our national interest that we take whatever action we can, including with our partners, to counter any further instability in Syria.
Like Ministers, I was in the region this weekend discussing the situation with some of our key and crucial partners. Given the large porous borders, violence, insurgency and flow of weapons in the region, can the Foreign Secretary give details of the work being undertaken to strengthen and secure the borders of neighbouring countries? There is a significant risk of a power vacuum in Syria, which could lead to a breakdown of law and order and a proliferation of criminal activities, including the smuggling of weapons and drug production on an industrial scale. Will the Foreign Secretary give an update on the actions being taken to monitor and respond to those criminal activities? Will he also comment on the risk to our security from foreign terrorist fighters being freed from prisons? Will he give his assessment of the risk of the state’s weapons, including potential chemical weapons, falling into the control of those who would cause us harm and threaten our security?
Instability can fuel a rise in extremism, and not only in Syria. There is a risk that ISIS will seek to exploit the present situation; this is also an issue at home. Will the Foreign Secretary inform us whether a cross-Government review of security and defence implications, including terrorism risks, is under way? To what level can he share—I appreciate that he might not be able to do so fully in the House—what discussions are under way with our intelligence partners to counter extremists and security threats from the region?
Hayat Tahrir al-Sham’s historical links to al-Qaeda and their ideology are well known, so they have been proscribed for good reason. Will the Foreign Secretary give a timetable for the reported review of HTS and share the details of the legal mechanism that he will use for that review? Will he give assurances that the Government, with their partners, will be considering the potential threat that HTS pose immediately both to Syria and the region, as well as to our own interests? Security should always be the No. 1 consideration for us all, and we should not forget where this group originally came from. We need to be looking not just at their words but at their actions.
For years, the Assad regime was bailed out by the Russians, the Iranians and Hezbollah, but with Russia now focused on its illegal invasion in Ukraine and with Iran’s presence in the region depleted, will the Foreign Secretary give the Government’s assessment of how this change in Syria will affect the dynamics in the time ahead? What is the strategy for dealing with Iran, which still wants a foothold in Syria to exploit and funnel the misery that we have seen for too long? While we must work towards a better future for Syria, I hope that the Foreign Secretary will agree that the Government must remain alert and prepared for the risks and threats that could still emerge.
Mr Lammy
I thank the shadow Foreign Secretary for her remarks. Last week, she was in touch with her concerns about what was taking place, and we were able to correspond. I am grateful for the manner in which we have been able to engage on this very serious issue.
The shadow Foreign Secretary rightly raised the terrible human rights records of Russia and Iran in backing this grim, brutal regime. She is absolutely right that they should be held to account for their actions. She will know that we do not have a diplomatic presence in Syria at this time, and indeed the Syrians do not have a diplomatic presence here in the UK, so recording these actions is not straightforward. However, as she would expect, we continue to work with non-governmental organisations and civil society to support them in their efforts. We will see over the coming days and weeks how they can both record and hold to account those who kept Syria under this brutal regime not just for the last 13 years, but in the years before that under the regime of Assad’s father.
The shadow Foreign Secretary raised Syrian resettlement. Let me say that that is premature. The House has sought on a cross-party basis to support the humanitarian needs of Syrians; indeed, she would have seen that in her previous role in government. We recognise the displacement next door in Lebanon, Jordan, Turkey, Iraq and neighbouring countries, and we will continue to support people in those refugee camps and through the humanitarian aid that we support in-country at this time.
The shadow Foreign Secretary raised the tremendous issues on the ground. We are all rightly concerned about increased terrorism that might engulf the country, which has different sections, communities, minorities and regions—not just HTS, as has been reported in the papers. Against that backdrop, a Cobra has been convened to fully understand these issues across Government. It would not be right to comment on intelligence matters at this time, but she will understand that the Government are active, as she would expect us to be.
The shadow Foreign Secretary is right about the threat not just of terrorism but of illicit drugs. Having just come back from the region, I am sure that she will have heard Gulf allies raise the issue of Captagon and illegal drugs that also propped up Assad’s regime and flooded into Gulf countries. We continue to monitor that. None of us wants Syria to become like Libya next door—fractured and vulnerable to different terrorist groups. We will do all we can. That is why I spoke to the UN envoy yesterday—I will continue to stay in close dialogue with him—and to Jordan, Turkey, the United Arab Emirates and others. The UK will do all it can to support this new representative process that has the people of Syria at its heart. We want the jubilation to continue, and not be replaced by another bloody and brutal regime.
Ukraine
Priti Patel Excerpts(3 weeks, 2 days 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 he will make a statement on the war in Ukraine.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Catherine West)
The UK’s support for Ukraine to defend itself against Russian aggression is ironclad. In July this year, the Government committed to provide Ukraine with £3 billion of military aid every year for as long as needed. In October, we announced that the UK Government would provide a further £2.26 billion as the UK’s contribution to the $50 billion G7 loan, earmarked as budgetary support for Ukraine’s military spending. This will be provided in addition to our bilateral military aid. We are also stepping up and speeding up delivery of our military support.
The UK is also leading the way in terms of pressure on Russia and Putin’s war machine. To date, we have sanctioned over 2,100 individuals and entities under the Russia sanctions regime. Sanctions have deprived Russia of over $400 billion since February 2022, equivalent to four more years of funding for the invasion. Putin’s problems are growing, with 700,000 casualties to date, voluntary recruitment down 40% and an unsustainable war economy. Russia has been forced to rely on Iran for missiles and on the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea for foot soldiers.
Our support to Ukraine is a core UK national interest. A Russian victory would diminish the west’s global standing, create a zone of instability on our eastern flank, and embolden Putin and other autocrats. This could require cold war levels of defence spending. On 19 November, we passed a grim milestone—1,000 days since Putin launched his full-scale invasion. Millions of Ukrainians have been displaced from their homes or forced into exile, and as we know from our constituencies, we have homes full of Ukrainian families.
The Prime Minister has made it clear that we need to double down on our support for Ukraine. As the Foreign Secretary told the United Nations Security Council last month, we stand with the people of Ukraine during this terrible period of its history. It is wonderful to have cross-party support for that, and for the support that the UK will deliver for as long as it takes until Ukraine prevails, to ensure that this can never happen again.
Priti Patel
Thank you, Mr Speaker, for granting this urgent question. Following the Prime Minister’s comments yesterday, we need some clarity from the Government on their approach to Ukraine. At the Lord Mayor’s banquet, the Prime Minister said that it was important to
“put Ukraine in the strongest possible position for negotiations so that they can secure a just and lasting peace on their terms”.
We can all agree that Ukrainians must be able to determine their own future. I am sure the Minister recognises that the language used by the Prime Minister yesterday evening at the Lord Mayor’s banquet about negotiations is new.
On 21 November in the House, the Prime Minister made no reference to negotiations for peace, stating:
“We have consistently said that we will do what it takes to support Ukraine and put it in the best possible position going into the winter”,
and that
“Russia could roll back its forces and end this war tomorrow.”—[Official Report, 21 November 2024; Vol. 757, c. 373.]
As the Minister pointed out, the Foreign Secretary stated here on 19 November:
“The final truth is that Putin has no interest in a just peace.”—[Official Report, 19 November 2024; Vol. 757, c. 163.]
We all agree that putting Ukraine in the strongest possible position to counter Russia’s illegal invasion is right. We are all proud in this House, across this Government and the previous Government, of how we have led on that support to Ukraine and its people. However, if the Government are framing that through the lens of negotiation, does the Minister believe that that represents a departure from the current approach and from the statements issued in this House?
The Minister will herself have seen President Zelensky’s latest remarks about NATO membership. It is important for NATO to speak with one voice on these matters, and this unity is absolutely crucial, so can the Minister update the House on the Government’s current position on Ukraine acceding to NATO?
We all continue to see more appalling brutality from Putin, with his pummelling of civilians and Ukraine’s energy systems constantly as winter kicks in, which is starting to hurt the people of Ukraine. The misery that that could inflict is the most atrocious form of psychological and physical warfare. The UK has led so much on Ukraine, so can the Minister confirm whether the Government are looking at what more can be done to protect Ukraine’s energy infrastructure? Can she reassure the House that we will keep on doing everything we can do to support the defence of freedom in Ukraine?
Catherine West
I reassure the right hon. Lady that there is no change in the UK position. We have always said that we will support Ukraine to achieve a just peace on its own terms. The PM has been clear, including in his speech last night, that
“we must continue to back Ukraine and do what it takes to support…self-defence for as long as it takes”,
because it is for Ukraine to determine its position in any future discussions. Putin cannot be trusted—Russia has violated multiple previous agreements—and the clearest path to peace is for Russia to withdraw its troops from Ukraine tomorrow and respect Ukrainian borders.
On the NATO membership question that the right hon. Lady poses, Ukraine’s place is in NATO. The allies agreed in Washington on 10 July that Ukraine is on an
“irreversible path to full Euro-Atlantic integration, including NATO membership”,
and the UK fully supports that goal.
Bangladesh: Attacks on Hindu Community
Priti Patel Excerpts(3 weeks, 3 days 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)
First of all, I thank the hon. Member for Brent West (Barry Gardiner) for his urgent question on this important subject. He also raised the arrest of the ISKCON leader, and I too am familiar with the place of worship near the hon. Gentleman’s constituency.
There are deep and long-standing ties between our two countries. The Minister visited Bangladesh recently. She is right to point out that, as the hon. Member for Brent West said, the degree of escalation in the violence is deeply, deeply concerning. What we are witnessing now is uncontrolled violence in many quarters. We are watching with horror and shock as further violence spreads in Bangladesh. The thoughts of all of us in the House are with the diaspora community here and those affected in Bangladesh. These are deeply disturbing reports. The Minister also mentioned the deadly attacks and the violence that took place during what is an auspicious period, the Durga Puja festival, in 2021.
Given the current instability in Bangladesh and the departure of the former Prime Minister in August, this is a moment of deep concern. Many Governments are condemning the violence and calling for peace, and law and order to be restored. I welcome the Minister’s comments, but I emphasise that all efforts must now be taken. A religious leader has been arrested and we need to know what is being done, due process in particular, to secure his release.
Will the Minister give details of the Government’s engagement with the Bangladesh Government on that particular matter? What discussions have taken place? Have we been robust in pursuing: the right to protect life; the prevention of violence and persecution; and, importantly, tolerance for religious belief? What efforts have the Government undertaken to build on the previous Government’s work to promote freedom of religion and belief in Bangladesh? Can the Minister say what discussions are taking place with other international partners to help restore the stability we desperately need to see in Bangladesh?
Catherine West
The protests following the student-led events in June, July and August were deeply troubling and led to the fall of the Government of Bangladesh. The Opposition spokesperson is quite correct to emphasise the nature of these worrying protests. Our constituents are concerned, which is why my hon. Friend the Member for Brent West brought this important question here today. They include reported cases of retaliatory attacks against allies of the former regime, including the Hindu minority. Some of the attacks are allegedly politically motivated and are of concern. That is why I had it at the top of my agenda when I met Professor Dr Yunus and why the effort was made to set up the policing unit. Our high commission is active—more than any other that I could see when I was there—in guiding, helping and supporting a peaceful transition to a new Government, elections eventually and a harmonious future. Anywhere in the world where freedom of religion or belief is at risk, there we will be standing up for the rights of minority groups.
North-West Syria
Priti Patel Excerpts(3 weeks, 3 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Priti Patel (Witham) (Con)
I thank the Minister for his statement. These developments in Syria are deeply serious and threaten further brutality and terror in a region under enormous pressure and suffering. We have seen an extremist rebel group make rapid progress and take territory in Aleppo, and the first Russian airstrikes in Aleppo since 2016. We know that there has been fighting in Idlib and Hama too. Civilian lives continue to be lost and homes continue to be destroyed.
As the Minister says, there has been more than a decade of turmoil and tragedy for the innocent people of Syria, which is beyond disturbing. With the eyes of the world focused on other conflicts, we cannot forget the brutality, the loss of life and the destruction that has taken place in Syria, or its consequences. More than half a million people have already been killed, with millions injured or maimed, with some being victims of chemical weapons. How many more innocent lives must be sacrificed to a savage dictator’s thirst for power or at the whim of bloodthirsty terrorists?
The civil war in Syria was one of the most harrowing issues I had to deal with in government, and right hon. and hon. Members who have been in the House since 2011 will know from our debates how this conflict has disrupted the region and contributed to the global migration crisis. Like other Members, I have met Syrians in countries such as Jordan and Lebanon who spoke of their fear, concern and trauma. Both countries are under great pressure right now, particularly Lebanon.
People’s lives have been turned upside down by this conflict, with those caught on the berm between Jordan and Syria facing terrible atrocities. The calculated and cruel barbarism of the Assad regime and the brutality of the terrorist groups have been horrifying at every stage of this conflict. They have held our belief in tolerance and freedom in contempt, and we should never turn a blind eye.
I have been very clear that when red lines are crossed in this conflict, the UK must be part of a firm response. We are in a dangerous place once again, and the situation could become even more severe. I saw the statements issued by the Government and our partners in America, Germany and France over the weekend, and I hope the Minister can answer some of my questions, as we need an honest assessment of this conflict.
Can the Minister tell us his assessment of the real threat that Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham poses to our interests? In his statement, he commented on the drugs and arms smuggling through Syria, which we have known about for some time. Our dear friends and allies in Jordan have been raising this issue, so can he tell us what action he plans to take with international and neighbouring allies to address this?
With further instability and conflict in Syria, there is also a risk that criminal activities will proliferate. Instability also fuels extremism, and not just abroad but here at home too. Can the Minister therefore outline the risk that dangerous extremists in Syria pose to the security of prisons in the area? And can he confirm that there is cross-Government co-ordination to review the security and defence implications and the terrorism risks?
The House will know that the UK has been in the vanguard of the humanitarian response, of which we should all be proud. The previous Government invested £4 billion in support that has reached millions of people, saving lives with food, shelter, water, medicines, vaccinations and improved sanitation.
Can the Minister explain what this Government will do to ensure that aid gets into the hands of the right people, not the wrong people? I remember the day when we saw an aid convoy blown up, which disrupted aid when there was no humanitarian corridor. What is he doing to leverage our aid budget to respond to these new and recent developments? Can he also tell us whether aid is getting into the areas affected by the current surge in violence? How could this new escalation impact on the migratory pressures in Syria, and what will that mean for neighbouring areas?
We know that the Assad regime has been bailed out by the Russians, the Iranians and Hezbollah, but with Russia now focused on its illegal invasion of Ukraine, and with Iran’s presence in the region now depleted, what is the Minister’s assessment of how this will affect the dynamics of the current insurgency? Finally, does he have a vision for what future we should now be discussing with regard to Syria, and for how we can get there?
Hamish Falconer
I thank the right hon. Lady for her questions. She raised a lot of issues and I will endeavour to address as many as I can.
The right hon. Lady asked what regional co-ordination is under way. We are talking to partners in all the regional capitals, as she would expect, but let me be clear about who we are not talking to. We do not talk to HTS, which is a proscribed terrorist organisation—it is proscribed for a reason and remains proscribed, and we are concerned by many of the public statements it has made. We are not talking to the Assad regime; the right hon. Lady paints well the horrors that Assad and his regime have perpetrated across Syria. However, we are talking to all those with an interest. As I said, I will travel to the region at the weekend and undertake further consultations. I am talking to NGOs and other actors on the ground.
The right hon. Lady asked whether access is sufficient. As she will have seen, the frontlines are moving very quickly and we are concerned that practical access for aid agencies will be difficult to maintain. We are working with our partners to try to maintain access through established humanitarian corridors, and to ensure that a population that is already at great risk will be provided with the assistance it needs. At a moment of such quick changes, that is difficult, but we are working day and night to ensure that happens.
The right hon. Lady asked about cross-Government co-ordination. We are very alive to the terrorist threats that could emanate from Syria, not least from Daesh, which may be down but is not out. We continue to monitor those issues very closely, including the status of prisons, which she referred to.
On the dynamics in the region, clearly the region is in very significant flux. The position of Iran and Russia is in flux, which is why I call on them and say clearly that they must not conduct the large-scale attacks on civilians that I fear are their go-to in such a situation.
Oral Answers to Questions
Priti Patel Excerpts(1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Priti Patel (Witham) (Con)
Last week, I spoke with Mandy Damari. The Minister has mentioned Emily, and I know the Foreign Secretary and his team have been in touch with the family as well. She and many other hostage families are going through the most unimaginable suffering, so can the Minister, on behalf of the Foreign Secretary, confirm whether any aid organisations have had humanitarian access to the hostages, and if not, what pressure is being exerted on those agencies? Clearly, welfare concerns are paramount, but these poor families are also suffering unimaginable horrors and our aid budget needs to be spent in the right way, so can the Minister tell us what work is being undertaken?
Hamish Falconer
Regrettably, no organisation has had access to the hostages. We continue to call for access for the International Committee of the Red Cross and any other appropriate non-governmental organisation in the usual way. Let us be clear: Hamas hold these hostages, and they are behaving abominably and outwith any international norm. They are not abiding by any convention that we could think of. We will continue to press them to ensure that there is the required access to British nationals, but it is regrettable for the whole House that we are in this position.
Anneliese Dodds
I gently encourage the hon. Member to look at the action taken by the UK Government some weeks ago to suspend a number of arms licences. We believe that was important because of the risk towards breaking international humanitarian law. The UK Government take their responsibilities in that regard very seriously indeed.
Priti Patel (Witham) (Con)
The root cause of so much of the terrible humanitarian suffering in the middle east today is the regime in Tehran, fuelling the Houthis, Hamas and Hezbollah and brutally repressing its own people while bailing out Putin’s war machine, and even plotting to assassinate individuals based in the UK. Beyond sanctions with Iran—which we all support and successive Governments have put in place over the years—can the Minister tell us, on behalf of the Foreign Secretary, what exactly is the comprehensive plan to start dealing with this repressive regime that is causing so much brutality across the middle east?
Anneliese Dodds
We are deeply concerned about the destabilising impact of the Iranian regime within the region and beyond. The right hon. Lady mentioned a number of cases where we can see that impact clearly. I would also underline that the truly devastating humanitarian crisis in Yemen is very much connected to Iranian backing of the Houthis. We have repeatedly raised our concerns about this bilaterally and multilaterally. We are clear that we need a strong voice as a UK Government on these matters, and that is exactly what we are delivering.
Priti Patel (Witham) (Con)
The relationship that the Government are building with China appears to be all give and no take. In order to convince the House that the situation is different, can the Foreign Secretary tell us what has been achieved with regard to advancing Britain’s interests in respect of security, economic practices and human rights since his recent visits to China, and what he expects to be achieved during his future visits?
Mr Lammy
I welcome the right hon. Lady to her place, and also remind her that under the last Government there were about seven different China policies and very little was achieved. We have had four and a half months. I was very pleased to be in China discussing issues on which we disagree, on which we agree and on which we challenge China, and I will continue to do that over the coming months and years.
Priti Patel
In the light of that response, can the Foreign Secretary state categorically whether, as part of his conversations with Chinese counterparts, the UK Government have explicitly called for the repeal of the national security law in Hong Kong, whether he has specifically called for Jimmy Lai be released, and whether he will ensure that no deals—such as China’s application for a new embassy—can go ahead until Jimmy Lai is free?
Mr Lammy
I thank the right hon. Lady for raising the situation in Hong Kong, which formed a substantial part of our conversation. Of course we raised issues relating to Jimmy Lai—as I have said in the House before—and the security law in Hong Kong. There are disagreements between us, and we were very clear about that. The right hon. Lady can be sure that matters involving both our representation in this country and China’s representation will pass through our system in the usual way without Government interference.
Israel-Gaza Conflict: Arrest Warrants
Priti Patel Excerpts(1 month 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 he will make a statement on the Government’s response to the decision taken by the International Criminal Court’s pre-trial chamber I to issue arrest warrants in respect of the Israel-Gaza conflict.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Hamish Falconer)
Last Thursday, judges at the International Criminal Court issued arrest warrants for the Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, former Defence Minister Yoav Gallant and the reportedly deceased Mohammed Diab Ibrahim al-Masri, commonly known as Deif, commander-in-chief of the military wing of Hamas.
The ICC is the primary international institution for investigating and prosecuting the most serious crimes of international concern. It is actively investigating allegations of the gravest crimes in countries around the world, including Ukraine, Sudan and Libya. In line with this Government’s stated commitment to the rule of law, we respect the independence of the ICC. We will comply with our international obligations. There is a domestic legal process through our independent courts that determines whether to endorse an arrest warrant by the ICC in accordance with the International Criminal Court Act 2001. That process has never been tested, because the UK has never been visited by an ICC indictee. If there were such a visit to the UK, there would be a court process, and due process would be followed in relation to those issues.
There is no moral equivalence between Israel, a democracy, and Hamas and Lebanese Hezbollah, two terrorist organisations. This Government have been clear that Israel has a right to defend itself in accordance with international law. That right is not under question, and the Court’s approval of the warrants last week does not change that. Israel is of course a partner across UK priorities, including trade, investment, security and science and technology. We co-operate across a wide range of issues for our mutual benefit.
This Government remain focused on pushing for an immediate ceasefire to bring an end to the devastating violence in Gaza. That is essential to protect civilians, ensure the release of hostages and increase humanitarian aid into Gaza. We have always said that diplomacy is what will see an end to this conflict, and that can only be achieved through dialogue. It is in the long-term interests of the Israelis, Palestinians and the wider region to agree to a ceasefire deal urgently and bring this devastating conflict to an end.
Priti Patel
The International Criminal Court’s decision to issue arrest warrants for the state of Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and its former Defence Minister Yoav Gallant will do nothing to help secure the release of those poor hostages, who have been held captive by Hamas for more than a year. It will not help to get more aid into Gaza, and it will not deliver a sustainable end to this awful conflict. In charging Israeli leaders alongside Hamas, the ICC appears to be drawing a moral equivalence between Israel’s war of self-defence and Hamas terrorism. We utterly reject any moral equivalence. The only beneficiaries of this decision are Hamas and their terrorist sponsors, Iran, who are now celebrating this propaganda coup as a great victory for Hamas and Hezbollah. Since the ICC’s decision, we have had dither from Ministers, confused messaging and no clarity, so I am grateful to the Minister for his remarks today.
The Government have indicated already that they will seek to enforce these warrants through our own courts, and there is a process around that. On the issue of warrants, we have expressed serious concerns over process, jurisdiction and the position on the complementarity principle. We believe that the warrants for Mr Netanyahu and Mr Gallant have no basis in international law. Do the Government believe that the Court has jurisdiction in this case, given that Israel is not party to the Rome statute and Palestine is not a recognised state? Does the Minister agree that the ICC must act within legal norms?
In the absence of the ICC making public the specific context of the charges, does the Minister share the concerns expressed about reports of process errors in the ICC’s investigation and the concerns expressed by Lord Macdonald, the former Director of Public Prosecutions, about the use by the prosecutor of an expert panel? Finally, but crucially, what effect does the Minister believe that Mr Netanyahu’s immunity under international law as a serving Prime Minister of a country that is not a state party has on enforcing these warrants in the UK’s own courts?
These are important questions on which I look forward to the Minister’s response. He has already spoken about securing the release of hostages and more aid coming into Gaza, but at this time when such a conflict is taking place, it is important that we have clarity from the Government.
Hamish Falconer
I welcome the questions from the right hon. Member across the Benches. Utmost in the Government’s mind is the need to bring an immediate end to the conflict in Gaza and to secure the release of the hostages, whose families I have met. She knows that I am familiar with these issues from my previous life. We also need to see more aid going into Gaza. The questions at issue with the ICC are separate from that.
Diplomacy will continue regardless of the ICC process. But I had understood it to be the common position of the House that the international rule of law is an important commitment. The International Criminal Court is an important body—the primary body—in enforcing those norms, and the issues on jurisdiction and complementarity were heard by the pre-trial chamber. Its three judges issued their findings. I think we should respect those.
Ukraine: 1,000 Days
Priti Patel Excerpts(1 month, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Priti Patel (Witham) (Con)
I am grateful to the Foreign Secretary for advance sight of his statement and, importantly, to the Government for making time to acknowledge and mark this tragic and terrible anniversary.
Like so many in this House, I remember the early morning of that dark day in February 2022, 1,000 days ago. As Home Secretary at the time, I recall the early-morning call notifying me of Putin’s illegal invasion of Ukraine. It was a day we had all feared, having seen Russian troops gathering close to the border for several weeks beforehand, and indeed over the previous decade, since the invasion of Crimea and Russia’s support for the separatists in Donbas.
The sovereign territory of a European nation has been violated, and as the Foreign Secretary said, we have all watched the horrors unfold over the last 1,000 days. In those early days, we saw the Russian military machine advance deep into Ukrainian territory. I pay tribute to the heroism, courage and bravery of the Ukrainian armed forces and the Ukrainian people, who have proudly defended their sovereign territory.
Let us be in no doubt that Putin expected Ukraine to capitulate and for its Government to fall. He thought he could bully his way into Ukraine’s territory. Instead, President Zelensky and the Ukrainian people have bravely stood tall. They have fought on, and they are fighting every day. The cost to Russia has been catastrophic. Ukrainians are not just fighting for their country; they are fighting for our shared values of freedom, democracy, sovereignty and fundamental rights.
We should be proud that ever since Russian troops crossed the border, and before, this Parliament has stood shoulder to shoulder with our Ukrainian friends. Mr Speaker, you will recall that, in 2022, the entire machinery of government mobilised to support Ukraine. To this day, that cross-party support has been pivotal. We created safer routes to enable 20,000-plus Ukrainians to come to our country, and the Ministry of Defence, under Ben Wallace, was one of the first to supply weapons and key capabilities. We trained Ukrainian troops in this country, and we signed the security co-operation agreement that the Foreign Secretary mentioned. We announced a multibillion-pound funding package, too. The then Prime Minister, Boris Johnson, flew the flag for Ukraine across the world, making the case, imposing sanctions on Russia, persuading others and fighting the cause of freedom. We stand shoulder to shoulder with the Government in every single effort. The commitment has been solid as we have worked unstintingly with all our partners.
I saw the devastation when I met Ukrainians on the Polish border who were fleeing the conflict, and I know that many Members have visited Ukraine and met families over the last 1,000 days. We have all been touched by the personal horror stories of loss and grief from people, including children, whose lives have been shattered. Our thoughts are with them. It is a sobering and stark reminder that, although the modern world has delivered so much progress for humankind, unreconstructed tyrants are inflicting misery beyond comprehension with their contempt for human dignity, democracy and the rule of law. We saw that so clearly over the weekend, with the devastating waves of attacks unleashed by Putin.
I have a few questions for the Foreign Secretary. Will he confirm that we will continue to provide all the resources we can from our own stocks, and that we will work with our NATO allies to ensure that equivalent equipment is available for Ukraine if we do not progress with specific capabilities ourselves? NATO countries, as we know, are able to leverage a collective GDP that is 20 times greater than Russia’s, and a combined defence inventory many times larger than the Kremlin’s, so Russia’s victory in this war is not inevitable.
The Defence Secretary is sitting on the Front Bench, and he will have views on this, but I would welcome an indication on what steps the Government will take to replenish our stocks. Does the Foreign Secretary, on behalf of the Government, agree that this shows why it is important that we have a clear pathway to spending 2.5% of GDP on defence by 2030? Beyond the provision of lethal aid and capability, can he give an update on his diplomatic activity to further isolate Russia and to address the influx of North Korean troops?
We welcome this week’s announcement on sanctioning Iran for supporting the Russian war effort, and we must pursue those sanctions with vigour. We seek assurances that the Government will continue to review the measures on people and entities within the scope of sanctions, so that we can do more to prosecute Russia’s role in this conflict. Will the Foreign Secretary outline the approach that will be taken to engage with the new US Administration more widely, with our allies, to back Ukraine?
It is vital that this House stands united. As we mark 1,000 days of this war, we must ensure we continue to stand shoulder to shoulder on the side of freedom. Slava Ukraini!
Mr Lammy
This is my first opportunity to congratulate the right hon. Lady on taking up her post as shadow Foreign Secretary. We will probably disagree occasionally across the Dispatch Box about a few things, but I hope that we will never disagree on the support that we have to give to Ukraine. Her response to my statement underlines the unity of the House.
The right hon. Lady is right to recall the mobilisation of the last Government back in 2022. I am glad she reminded the House about the way British people have been prepared to open their homes in record numbers to so many Ukrainians, and about her leadership of the Home Office at that time. She is also right to raise our military-industrial capacity. I assure her that since coming into office, my right hon. Friend the Defence Secretary has made it his business to get underneath the bonnet of how we procure, contract and ensure innovation. British support is driving immense innovation in Ukraine, which the Defence Secretary and I have been able to see close up. It is something like a Blitz spirit, which is quite incredible; it is a whole-nation effort. Working in partnership can also drive innovation in our own system.
The right hon. Lady raises, quite rightly, defence spending. She will know that there are still countries in Europe and beyond that are not spending the 2% that is necessary. We urge them to do that. Successive US Presidents, long before Donald Trump, have been raising that as an issue. It is our intention to get back to 2.5% of GDP—that was the figure when we left office and we want to get back there. I remind her that this country has now committed £7.8 billion to military support, and the Prime Minister has committed to provide £3 billion a year in military support for as long as it takes.
She is right to raise the huge concerns about the DPRK. Some 10,000 North Korean troops are in Russia as we speak, which is a major escalation. That has been noted deeply in the Republic of Korea, because it links the Indo-Pacific to the Euro-Atlantic. As she knows, our system has been concerned about that subject for many years, but this is a major escalation in relation to those concerns.
The right hon. Lady is right to raise sanctions. The UK has now sanctioned over 2,100 individuals and entities under the Russian sanctions regime, as I have set out. I have gone after the Russian shadow fleet particularly. There is more to come. We will bear down heavily over the coming months and work with partners, both in the United States and Europe, to achieve that. She will have read about my dinner with the Prime Minister and Donald Trump. We discussed Ukraine and he was seized of the important issues. Donald Trump is a winner, not a loser, and I am sure he wants to ensure that the west is on the winning side.
Chagos Islands
Priti Patel Excerpts(1 month, 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)
Thank you, Mr Speaker.
The world is a more dangerous place than ever before in our lifetimes and this Government have agreed to give away a key strategic asset in the Indian ocean, ending more than 200 years of British sovereignty. It is the wrong decision, and we stand by that completely. A month has gone since the Government’s announcement, but we are still in the dark about exactly what they have agreed. That is simply not acceptable. We have no treaty and vital questions remain unanswered. That is unacceptable and the Minister needs to put it right today.
We cannot afford for our military base on Diego Garcia to be compromised in this way. What safeguards will be in place to ensure that no other states can establish themselves or place their assets, in particular strategic assets, on any nearby islands in the archipelago? How does the decision affect the strategic defence review that is under way? How much money will Labour be asking British taxpayers to send to Mauritius each year under the deal, which we do not even know the details of? Which departmental budgets will that come from? What is the total figure? The House expects transparency, including on what taxpayers will be funding. We need to hold the Government to account on this.
Will the Minister please give a cast-iron guarantee that the UK will be able to unilaterally extend the agreement on the military base beyond 99 years? That is all we have heard for now. What will be the mechanism for doing that? This is a crucial piece of scrutiny that we all need to know about, particularly as the Minister raised a point about national security and the national security apparatus agreeing to this arrangement. What discussions has the Foreign Secretary—I know he is not here today—personally undertaken with the Chagossian community, who the Minister will know are beyond distraught about the agreement?
The elections in Mauritius and the United States pose further questions, and it is right that we follow up on them. Labour rushed into the deal just before the Mauritian elections, even though Ministers must surely have realised that a change of Government was a strong possibility. Why did they do that? The Minister needs to be clear. We want to know how the Government are going to engage with the new US Administration. The Opposition oppose the Government’s decision and we intend to hold them to account.
Stephen Doughty
First, I welcome the shadow Foreign Secretary to her place in this Chamber. We were in a Committee earlier today, but I welcome her to her place. I have always had good engagement with her on issues in the past and she is right to ask important questions, but the first thing I need to do is correct the idea that we are somehow giving up the base. That is exactly the opposite of what we are doing. We are securing the future of the base. The base will continue to operate. It will continue to operate as it has done.
The right hon. Lady asks an important question about security guarantees in relation to the outer islands. There will be clear commitments in the treaty for robust security arrangements, including preventing the presence of foreign security forces on the outer islands. We simply would not have signed off an agreement that compromised any of our security interests or those of our allies. Indeed, this has been discussed not just at a political level in the United States, but at a deep technical level. She will know from her time in government about the nature of the special relationship and the depth of that relationship. That is why we have proceeded only on the basis that we were all satisfied with the arrangements.
The right hon. Lady will be able to scrutinise those arrangements in due course, as will the House, Mr Speaker. The treaty will be presented in the usual way after signature. It will go through the usual process. [Interruption.] She asks when. We have just had the Mauritian election. We will be engaging with the new Administration there and seeking to present the treaty for signature. We will then present it, in all its detail, to the House.
The right hon. Lady asked about an extension period. There is a provision in the treaty for an extension period after the 99-year period.
The right hon. Lady asked about the Chagossians. Again, I gently say that there are a range of views in the Chagossian community. They have been expressed to me on many occasions, both before I came into government and since I have been in government. There is a range of views on the arrangement. We respect all the different views that are out there. We will continue to engage with the Chagossian community, but I am absolutely clear that there are important provisions in the deal that support the Chagossian community: their ability to return to the outer islands, the visits, the trust fund, the unilateral support we will continue to provide, and the fact that Chagossians are welcome to come here to the UK and take up British citizenship, which was an agreement under the previous Government.
Commonwealth Parliamentary Association and International Committee of the Red Cross (Status) Bill [Lords]
Priti Patel ExcerptsWednesday 13th November 2024
(1 month, 1 week ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Commonwealth Parliamentary Association and International Committee of the Red Cross (Status) Bill [HL] 2024-26 View all Commonwealth Parliamentary Association and International Committee of the Red Cross (Status) Bill [HL] 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 13 November 2024 - (13 Nov 2024)
Priti Patel (Witham) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Vickers. I echo the Minister’s words about the Committee, the long-standing support for this Bill and the work that took place, including before I arrived in post. As was set out on Second Reading, not only do the Opposition support the Bill, but it is important to recognise the work of the CPA and the ICRC. I have had the great privilege of working with the ICRC in, I am afraid, harrowing times of conflict, instability and great humanitarian crisis around the world, and we should all support the bravery that their workers show, as well as their dedication to being a force for good.
The CPA’s work is central to realising the Commonwealth charter’s commitment to
“the development of free and democratic societies”,
as well as capacity building. It is vital that we continue to nurture and support that, because democratic legislatures around the world are pivotal to the security that we all want to see. The ICRC has a unique legitimacy to engage parties to conflict and access vulnerable people in conflict zones, and that is why is the Bill is so important. No one and no country should ever take that for granted, particularly given some of the hostilities and fragility across the world.
In the light of our long-standing commitment to the Bill, my remarks will be brief. It is clear that the legal changes in the Bill are absolutely necessary for the proper functioning of the CPA and the ICRC. Specifically on the CPA, we support clause 1 and the concept of effectively treating the CPA as an international organisation—it feels almost perverse that it has taken this long to get to that stage. We want the CPA to be able to fully participate across a range of areas in which it currently faces restrictions. The Bill provides a clean legal solution with regard to its key international functions, so it is right to make these changes. The Bill’s proposal that its legal capacities become almost corporate functions is highly sensible. Again, on the privileges and immunities that the Minister has outlined in the schedule, and the conditions of application, the approach is proportionate in relation to the function of the CPA and the ICRC.
We recognise the necessity of clause 3. Among other things, it will assist the courts, and the Minister and I are pretty familiar with some of the issues relating to the status of a person who might have been granted privileges and immunities. It would be useful if the Minister set out the steps he will take once the Bill passes, so that we lean in and advance what is being done to support the work of the CPA. I refer to the support for both the UK delegation and the CPA’s wider work.
The Minister mentioned CHOGM. There was a communiqué about democratic institution building, as well as election observation and support, that stated:
“Heads requested the Commonwealth Secretariat to develop a plan for the whole-of-election-cycle approach and to ensure that there is sustainable financing for this work.”
What role does the Minister think the CPA will have in that, and what kind of contribution does he see it making?
Mr Gagan Mohindra (South West Hertfordshire) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Vickers. It is unusual for the shadow Whip to say anything during Committee, but I want to make a declaration of interest: I am one of the vice-chairs of CPA UK and a director and trustee of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association UK branch. This is a non-pecuniary interest.
Priti Patel
I am very grateful to the Minister for the way in which he outlined the detail of clause 2. First, we recognise the benefits of conferring the legal capabilities of a body corporate on the ICRC, which includes contracts and the acquiring and disposing of property and legal proceedings. That is vital. Regarding legal disclosure requirements, it is right that sensitive information that the ICRC shares with the Government is protected. The Minister has succinctly outlined the reasons for that, and I completely endorse and support them.
We do not want the ICRC to be restricted in the level of information that it shares. We are contributors to the international aid budget and great supporters of the ICRC. Whether it is assessments or understanding the resources that are needed, all of this helps with the analytics, which helps the UK Government to step up in times of crisis and provide the resources that are needed. We should not do anything that would weaken our ability to work in a constructive way, particularly at times of crisis.
It would be very helpful if the Minister shared his thoughts on the use of these provisions in driving forward our relationship with the ICRC., because it is about results. The Minister will know from my previous incarnations my focus on delivery of results, which is even more important in times of humanitarian crisis. It would be helpful if he said where he has made assessments of areas in which we could do more together to drive outcomes. It might not be appropriate now to give the illustrations but, in due course, we should work together on this, because it should go beyond money.
The Minister made an important point about ensuring that the legal capabilities and proceedings work in the right way for the ICRC, but do not cross over into criminal proceedings. The Minister will recognise my point on this. I am afraid that there have been appalling situations within the development sector, where we have seen, fortunately, whistleblowers disclose harrowing information—sexual abuse, violence, people abusing their positions—but not enough done within the development community to deal with it. I am heartened by the Minister’s assurances and, in due course, I believe that the British Government can step up in this area and become the leaders that we should be, to show that we have no truck with the wrong kinds of behaviours. Not only that, we can work with organisations such as the ICRC to use criminal proceedings in the right way to show that we will not tolerate wrongdoing.
My final comment is on a Treasury matter. We recently had the Budget, and the ICRC and other organisations, including the CPA, will be subject to replenishments at some stage. This is not a subject for detailed discussion now, but would the Minister indicate, in light of this Bill, the provisions and the support we are giving to the ICRC, where he sees the future funding pathway giving the ICRC the resources it needs to carry on being the strong, successful force for good in the world that we all want it to be.
Monica Harding
The Liberal Democrats support the immunities and privileges given to the ICRC under the Bill, which support its unique mandate of neutrality. Its work is needed more than ever on the frontline of conflict—there are more than 120 ongoing armed conflicts in the world—not least in its understanding and witness to the exercise of humanitarian law, which is sometimes applied permissively. I pay tribute to its work, and the Liberal Democrats support the clause.
Priti Patel
I thank the Minister for articulating the whole premise of an Order in Council, which is a long-standing procedure. There is not much for me to add on clause 4, because that is procedural. We know the merits of the Order in Council and the technicalities through which it will support various provisions. Clause 5 is technical and we do not object to it. I also support clause 6 and the removal of the insertion from the other place, which no one really understands.
Before I conclude, I thank everyone who has been involved in the development of the Bill, including former and current members of the CPA. Many long-standing figures have played an important role in shaping the CPA, its work around the world and the Bill. Importantly, the House should recognise the natural nurturing and important strengthening of institutions across the Commonwealth. We all have an interest in that, and it is crucial to continue that.
Finally, I thank the 18,000 staff of the ICRC around the world. I have worked with them and served alongside them in many capacities in the past, and this Bill will absolutely do what is required to give them not just the resources, but the footing that they need to deliver, as set out in the Bill.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 4 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 5 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 6
Extent, commencement and short title
Amendment made: 1, in clause 6, page 3, line 34, leave out subsection (4). —(Stephen Doughty.)
This amendment removes the privilege amendment inserted by the Lords.
Clause 6, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule agreed to.
Bambos Charalambous (Southgate and Wood Green) (Lab)
I want to make a declaration of interest before we conclude. I was a member of the CPA executive. I believe my hon. Friend the Member for Edmonton and Winchmore Hill also wants to say something. I apologise for my lateness today.