National Security Strategy

Priti Patel Excerpts

Tuesday 24th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Priti Patel (Witham) (Con)]

I am grateful to the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster for advance sight of the statement and of the strategy.

Protecting our country from internal and external threats to keep the British people and our interests safe is the No. 1 priority for any Government. As a former Home Secretary, I have seen at first hand the incredible efforts of our security and intelligence services to keep us safe. So much of their work will never be disclosed, but I know that the whole House will join me in thanking them for all they do, alongside our police, counter-terrorism operations, the armed forces and all those who work so hard to keep Britain safe.

His Majesty’s Opposition will always work constructively with the Government in the national interest, especially in the current global climate when threats are increasingly complex and multifaceted. Iran, China, Russia, North Korea, non-state terrorist actors and transnational criminals all pose a significant threat to us all. That is why we welcome actions that build on the measures we put in place in government, including our National Security Act 2023, which gives us increased oversight of adversarial action and introduced the foreign influence registration scheme.

The statement and the strategy refer to the three pillars of security at home, strength abroad, and increasing sovereign and asymmetric capabilities, and I will take each in turn. On security at home, protecting critical national infrastructure must be a key component of any national security strategy. How will that work in practice? What resources will be provided? What further steps are being taken to protect people on British soil from transnational repression? With China placing bounties on the heads of people in our own country and both the NSS and the strategic defence review highlighting the threats posed by China, can the right hon. Gentleman confirm that China will be placed on the enhanced tier of FIRS? Will the Government drop their support for the China super-embassy spy hub?

On projecting our strength abroad, the right hon. Gentleman mentioned today’s NATO summit, and the commitment to increase what he calls national security spending to 5% of GDP by 2035, with 3.5% on core defence. But he does not have a plan to get to 3%, let alone the 3.5%. It is all smoke and mirrors, so when will he deliver a plan to get to 3%, and why will he not heed our calls to hit 3% by the end of this Parliament? That would be a vital stepping stone on the way to the higher defence spending he is seeking. Will the Government give clear information on exactly what spending will be included in the 1.5% target? Is there any new money, and does this, for example, include the costs of Sizewell, as we heard recently?

As well as increasing spending, we need to develop a tougher edge for a dangerous world. Given the security threats that we continue to face, will Labour’s £30 billion Chagos surrender treaty be scrapped? It undermines our national security, and contrary to the Prime Minister’s claim, our loss of sovereignty has been publicly backed by representatives of the regimes in China, Russia and Iran. The costs also hoover up money that we could spend on much-needed defence capabilities at this incredibly dangerous time.

On increasing sovereign and asymmetric capabilities, can the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster explain what support will be given to private enterprise and what investment will support efforts in this area? I also note that the words in the Government’s strategy do not quite align with their broader action—for example, the decision to allow the Chinese firm Mingyang to provide wind turbines for large wind farm projects in the UK. Does he acknowledge the need to protect our energy infrastructure from such potential malign activity, and if so, what concrete steps have been taken to increase the very resilience of our own infrastructure?

Finally, on the important role of the Joint Committee on the National Security Strategy and of parliamentary oversight, we understand that the National Security Adviser, Jonathan Powell, has not been made available to the Committee for questioning. The Government have claimed that it would not be appropriate for him as a special adviser to answer questions from the Committee. However, in this case, it is more than clear that Mr Powell’s role as the National Security Adviser puts him in a unique position—a unique senior position—and it appears that, as the lead adviser for the Government’s national security strategy, it is only right that the Joint Committee be able to put questions to him. Given the important issue here, and Mr Powell’s senior role and central position, will the Government finally let him give evidence to the Committee to allow it to undertake its important work?

We will always work to support the defence and security of Britain, and engage constructively with Ministers and challenge them to do everything possible to keep us safe, so I welcome the chance for these questions to be answered today.

[Pat McFadden]

Let me express my gratitude to the shadow Foreign Secretary for her response, the spirit in which she put her questions and her welcome for at least broad parts of the strategy we have published today. Let me turn to the questions she has asked and try to address them.

On the resources to protect people, we made our commitment to increase defence expenditure to 2.5% of GDP. Unlike the Conservative party, we said exactly how we would pay for that, even though it meant a very difficult choice on this side of the House. On the FIRS scheme, the right hon. Lady will be aware that Iran and Russia have been placed on the enhanced tier. She asked about our approach to China. This is a serious question and we must have a serious approach to it. The Conservative party, during its time in government, veered between the naivety of the so-called “golden era” to, in effect, no engagement at all. We believe that both were the wrong approach. Instead, our approach will be marked by a desire to protect our national security and to promote our economic interests; total disengagement is not a good option for the UK, so we will be guided by both. The Foreign Secretary, as I said, will make a fuller statement on China shortly.

The right hon. Lady asks what might be included in the 1.5%. It will include such things as cyber-security, border security and telecoms infrastructure. To those who ask what those things have to do with defence, let me be clear: our opponents and our enemies know that they are part of national security, and we should recognise that, too.

Finally, we have resisted the Opposition’s pleas for us to choose between our allies. In resisting that, I believe we have a strategy that makes our country stronger and enhances Britain’s capabilities. That is at the heart of the strategy we put today. Indeed, we made a conscious choice to increase investment in the country’s future capabilities at the spending review. This will give us increased strength in the future. The spending we have committed to is funded, it is set out in the spending review and that is the approach we will take in the future, too.

Anniversary of 7 October Attacks: Middle East

Priti Patel Excerpts

Monday 7th October 2024 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

I completely agree that we need an immediate ceasefire. That is what we are working for and what the US is leading on. I do not agree with a complete ban on arms sales. That would include a ban on arms being used for defensive purposes. Looking at the attack of only a few days ago by Iran, I think the House will understand my position on this and the position of many across the House.

[Priti Patel (Witham) (Con)]

The Prime Minister has rightly spoken about the significance of diplomacy right now, and I think the entire House would agree that, across the region itself, leaders must come together. What discussions has the Prime Minister had with Gulf Co-operation Council leaders about the behaviour—the aggressive behaviour—of their neighbour Iran, and what role they can play in de-escalation and preventing Iran from further escalating this terrible conflict?

[The Prime Minister]

I thank the right hon. Member for that question. This is a really important issue. We have had numerous discussions with our colleagues and with leaders, and I do think there is an important role that can be played and pressure that can be applied through those discussions. We will continue to do so, so I thank her for her question.

Debate on the Address

Priti Patel Excerpts

Wednesday 17th July 2024 Commons Chamber

[Priti Patel (Witham) (Con)]

It is good to take part in this debate on the Loyal Address. In particular, it was good to see His Majesty attend the House today. I wish him well in his recovery and pay tribute to his record of service to our nation.

I congratulate all new Members who have entered the House. I thank the proposer and the seconder of the motion, the hon. Members for Bootle (Peter Dowd) and for Vauxhall and Camberwell Green (Florence Eshalomi), who are no longer in their places. It is fair to say—this is a note for all new Members, as well as existing Members—that their speeches were made in the finest traditions of the House. The start of the Parliament is one of the few moments we have to unite, to respect each other’s speeches and contributions, and to become accustomed to the traditions, formalities and conventions of the House.

At the same time, we get to do the greatest thing that we all love: representing our constituents. For new Members, in particular, this will become the regular pattern of their work in this House and a reflection of the hard graft that goes in. We have all come fresh from a general election campaign where a lot of graft was put in, but we are now here, elected to represent our constituents, in the normal tradition, on the issues that may sometimes divide us, but where we can advance their cause through legislation.

I want to begin my contribution on the Loyal Address by saying a few words about the new Government’s tone over the past 12 days. It is an inevitable feature of a new Government that they spend their first few weeks continuing campaign rhetoric—we will hear it a lot—and talking down the record of the previous Government. However, much was advanced over the last 14 years.

We are proud of our record and the transformation we led, including on public finances. These are big things that do not just happen over a few weeks and months. We are proud that we transformed the public finances, from the Government borrowing £1 in every £4 to a much better fiscal position today. It is not easy to get into these fiscal positions and those on the Labour Benches should reflect on the fiscal position they inherit. We are proud of supporting the creation of 800 jobs per day, on average, having faster economic growth than many of our competitors, cutting the tax burden on incomes and fuel duty, overseeing an increase in doctors and nurses working in our NHS, more teachers, schools raising standards, and, on law and order, getting more police officers on our streets fighting crime. That is a record we are proud of. It is important to reflect on that. If I may say so, in a very subtle, gentle and polite way to those now on the Government Front Bench, it is all very well trying to rewrite history through slogans. It sometimes takes attention away from the responsibility of having to govern and make the big decisions and choices.

Let me touch on some policy areas. The Government have already presented a programme in one area of which I have some experience, having been Home Secretary for more than three years. We have heard quite a bit about immigration and crime, but although we have not seen the details, what we have heard from the Government so far differs little from some of the measures that were already in place. One example is the proposed UK border security command, which we actually set up just over four years ago to co-operate with international partners. Some of my colleagues who followed me in the Home Office will recognise much of this. They will recognise the need to take action in the English channel and work with our intelligence and security agencies in order to do so, and they will recognise the appointment of a clandestine channel threat commander and the establishment of joint interagency task forces, because they happened under the last Government.

I want to commend the work of our international law enforcement agencies and our international partners. Not only do they work at an exceptional level, but they work to save lives, and I think we should reflect on that, because only last week we saw more lives lost in the channel. We also introduced robust measures to tackle criminal gangs and county lines and put together safer streets policies together to protect our constituents, but some of those measures were opposed by those who are now in government when they sat on these Benches.

It is important to recognise that some things do not happen overnight. There is no single solution to some of these issues, but through collaboration we can drive the right outcomes. We heard the Prime Minister speak about law and order today, and I welcome many of his comments about the importance of safer streets and tackling terrorism, but also the need to address those appalling problems that we still see and will continue to see: violence on our streets and domestic abuse, with victims suffering at the hands of criminals. None of us wants prisoners to be released early, but it is important to focus on the victims of crime and to have the right punishments in place to ensure that the perpetrators are given tough sentences. Again, I noted that those measures were opposed in the last Parliament. It is important for us to get fairness back into our system when it comes to law and order.

One of the great achievements of the last Government was the expansion of renewable energy generation. We can be proud of our record in that regard and proud to be world leaders, given that the energy generated by a mix of renewables passed the 40% mark. That is a huge improvement on the situation in 2010. My hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex (Sir Bernard Jenkin) has already touched on the question of how we can generate new technology for energy purposes, and I genuinely believe that technology, rather than taxation, is the path to a much more sustainable future.

I think that our colleagues in the Government will recognise the reality of some of the projects that already exist and will now be dominating their inboxes, such as the National Grid’s attempts, through its Norwich to Tilbury plans, to impose more than 100 miles of pylons and overheard power lines across the east of England. It is pressing those proposals, but my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex and I are working to find alternatives through technology and ways in which we can upgrade the grid without destroying the East Anglian countryside. National Grid’s plans will affect farmers and community facilities such as White Notley football club, which will lose community pitches if the pylons are built across our constituencies. That will mean a huge loss of local amenity, which is deeply concerning. My constituents, and constituents throughout Essex and East Anglia, want to see alternatives such as an offshore grid or the use of more tunnelling to build up grid infrastructure capacity. The proposed infrastructure and planning Bill will be considered in great detail. It must receive the right level of scrutiny, along with the legislation on planning and new housing, and we must ensure that local views—the views of our constituents—are not simply disregarded.

I am aware that those on the Government Front Bench are already proposing a consultation in this area. If I may give them some subtle and gentle advice, listening to the views expressed in that consultation will be incredibly important, because this is not about saying that people do not want homes; in fact, constituencies such as mine have put forward so many plans for new homes. We have actually built over 10,000 new family homes over the last decade, which has helped my constituency to become a very good commuter town and successful when it comes to schools. Families want to move to our area, but it is a case of getting the balance right. That is incredibly important.

In the minute I have left, I want to make a point about economic growth. Of course, everybody across the country and in this House fundamentally believes in securing higher levels of economic growth, which every Government want—name me a Government who do not want that. We want more jobs, we want more job creation and we want more successful businesses, but it is about being on the side of businesses and how we can effectively support them to employ people.

Over 80% of my constituents are employed by small and medium-sized businesses. We are incredibly proud of that, but the minute that more regulatory burden comes upon those businesses, I am afraid they will lose the ability to grow and to employ local people. Of course, small businesses are the backbone of our economy. On a day like today, when we see new Bills coming forward through the Loyal Address and the King’s Speech, it is right that we are given the appropriate time to scrutinise them as we go forward through this Session of Parliament. Fundamentally, however, we need to make sure that, as His Majesty’s loyal Opposition, we Members of Parliament on this side of the Chamber provide scrutiny, but also redress, to ensure that constituents’ voices are heard—whether on planning, development or economic growth. Fundamentally, we need to make sure that Britain advances in the right way.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Christopher Chope)]

I call Kirith Entwistle to make her maiden speech.