Iran: Protests

David Reed Excerpts

Monday 19th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[David Reed (Exmouth and Exeter East) (Con)]

Does the Minister’s Department assess that the Iranian regime can come back from this and move into a position of strength? If so, does he assess that the sanctions packages being put forward are enough to limit that happening?

[Mr Falconer]

I am grateful for the opportunity to set out our position on the future of Iran, which is clearly a matter for the Iranian people. What we are pressing for and focused on is the Iranian authorities ensuring that their people can exercise their right to peaceful protest. What happens next is clearly a question not for London or Washington, but for the Iranian people themselves. That is a message we have delivered consistently to the Iranian regime, which is saying otherwise—publicly, particularly—so I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving me the opportunity to set that out from the Dispatch Box so clearly.

Ukraine

David Reed Excerpts

Wednesday 14th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[David Reed (Exmouth and Exeter East) (Con)]

To start, I reiterate the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Romford (Andrew Rosindell) made in his opening speech: we are at a major crossroads in this conflict and the stakes could not be higher. On the line is Ukraine’s sovereignty, the freedom of its people and the wider security of Europe—in truth, the security of all of us.

It can be easy in this House to speak in abstractions, such as the rules-based order, hybrid threats or deterrence, but the reality is brutally concrete. When Russia is allowed to advance by force, the consequences do not remain on the eastern flank; they spill into energy markets, cyber-attacks, disinformation and sabotage. Most importantly, they shape the calculations of every hostile actor watching to see what the west will tolerate. We all know that Russia is waging a sustained and hostile campaign against all of us and we must therefore be prepared for long-term tension. The outcome of the war in Ukraine remains central to dealing a decisive blow to that wider threat.

I will touch on a number of the points that we have heard from right hon. and hon. Members across the House today, kicking off with the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee. The right hon. Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry) spoke powerfully about the lion heart and resolve of the Ukrainian people, talking about their day-to-day life and how they have been attacked repeatedly by the brutal regime in Russia. She talked about energy and the barbaric nature of Putin’s regime and what it is forcing on the Ukrainian people, which needs to stop. She also raised a number of points about the shadow fleet, which I will comment on later.

The Lib Dem spokesperson, the hon. Member for Lewes (James MacCleary), raised an important question about deployments of British troops to Ukraine. I am looking forward to hearing the Minister’s response.

The hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead (David Taylor) spoke of an almost unified position across the House, with the exception of a few parties. I really hope that the parties that do not support that unified approach take a long, hard look in the mirror and work out whose side they are actually on. I want to align myself with the hon. Gentleman’s words about former Defence Secretary Sir Ben Wallace, who played a decisive role in the early few years of the Ukrainian war.

The Father of the House, my right hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh), made the point that Ukraine’s fight is our fight—a point that we mainly agree on. We cannot consider giving Putin territory that he has failed to capture over the past four years.

The hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South (Johanna Baxter) talked powerfully about the 20,000 stolen Ukrainian children. To put that into context, that is 20 schools-worth of children who have been taken over the Russian border. It is a disgusting and almost inconceivable practice, and we must not allow the world to forget what Putin’s regime has done.

My hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex (Sir Bernard Jenkin) has raised the issue of Ukraine numerous times over the past few years; I think we can all agree that when he speaks, everyone listens. He raised the diplomatic efforts that Russia is now trying to push along, which are so intense because, I think, it has worked out that militarily it cannot win. We know that is the rule of the game now, so we must increase pressure on the Russians and play them at their own game.

The chair of the Ukraine APPG, the hon. Member for Leeds Central and Headingley (Alex Sobel), talked about the pressure that the Ukrainians are currently under, again referring to heat and energy. I thank him for the work he has done to connect Ukrainian MPs with Members across this Parliament. I know how cold it gets in Arbroath, so when the hon. Member for Arbroath and Broughty Ferry (Stephen Gethins) talks about it getting down to minus 20° in Kyiv and says that it is a bit nippy, I know that he speaks from experience. The hon. Member for Stevenage (Kevin Bonavia) made a number of important points about the fact that we all want peace, but that it cannot be peace at any cost. That is a point that we must continue to discuss.

My hon. Friend the Member for South Shropshire (Stuart Anderson), who is a former soldier and a member of the NATO Parliamentary Assembly, raised really important questions about the nuts and bolts of the politics. I will discuss troop deployments later in my speech.

There were valuable insights and contributions from the hon. Member for Glenrothes and Mid Fife (Richard Baker); from my constituency neighbour, albeit separated by an estuary, the hon. Member for Newton Abbot (Martin Wrigley); from the hon. Member for Bournemouth East (Tom Hayes); from my right hon. Friend the Member for Maldon (Sir John Whittingdale), who has done a great deal for Ukraine over the years; and from the hon. Member for Rugby (John Slinger).

My hon. Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Dr Johnson) talked about the generosity of her constituents who had welcomed Ukrainians into their homes—a story we have heard across all our constituencies—and the hon. Member for Honiton and Sidmouth (Richard Foord), who is also my constituency neighbour and a member of the Intelligence and Security Committee, talked powerfully about Russian intent.

We all thank the hon. Member for Dorking and Horley (Chris Coghlan) very much for his service and his willingness to deploy if there is a deployment to Ukraine. Lastly, the hon. Member for Wokingham (Clive Jones) talked about war crimes. We need to remember that and enforce the law once there is peace.

We all want this war to end, but we have seen delay, obfuscation and maximalist demands from Putin when it comes to peace—a familiar strategy designed to divide allies and buy time. So I say to Ministers: pursue diplomacy, of course, but do so with your eyes wide open. As Churchill warned, “You cannot negotiate with a tiger when your head is in its mouth.” It is important to state that if a weak settlement is reached, it simply starts the clock on rearmament. Putin will not stop.

As has always been the case, it is for Ukraine to decide its own future, and any settlement must involve Ukraine, to secure a just and lasting peace under its terms. What matters most is that Putin cannot emerge strengthened. Conceding territory rewards aggression and sets a dangerous precedent far beyond Europe. Nor should Putin’s regime be welcomed back into the international fold, as if this was some sort of misunderstanding. This is a war of choice, an imperial project, and Putin has not abandoned his ambition to subjugate Ukraine.

That brings me to sanctions, assets and energy, where rhetoric must now become action. Although we welcome the £2.26 billion loan to Ukraine taken from profits from immobilised Russian sovereign assets, I believe we need to go further—a number of points were made on that today.

Several points were made about the Russian shadow fleet, and I welcome the reports that the Government are exploring a clearer legal basis to detain stateless vessels. But what matters now is resolve. Sanctions that are not enforced are not sanctions at all; they are merely suggestions. As the Minister for the Armed Forces and I know all too well, Britain has world-class maritime forces in both the Royal Marines and special forces, with near unrivalled experience in complex boarding operations. We should be working with allies to deter, disrupt and degrade the Russian fleet.

A number of unfolding situations are linked to Ukraine. The regime that is currently in power in Iran has been funding the Ukrainian war. Will the Minister say a few words on the unfolding situation in Iran and on UK troops being taken out of middle-eastern bases?

I visited the United States shortly before Christmas, and a congressman made a point to me that should land in every European capital: Americans cannot care more about European security than Europeans care about their own security. The gap between ambition and readiness cannot be closed by speeches. We have heard comments today from the Chief of the General Staff about the separation between the strategic defence review and the need to increase defence spending.

We must now match moral clarity with seriousness. Putin will not stop because we ask; he will stop when he is made to stop. This is the moment to get real and do the right thing. We stand with Ukraine and we will ensure that Ukraine wins the peace as well as the war.

Iran

David Reed Excerpts

Tuesday 13th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Yvette Cooper]

My hon. Friend will understand the importance of having an effective sanctions regime. I am happy to talk to him further about the point he raises, but as he will understand, the most immediate issue is how to support the re-establishment of communications and end the brutality that is taking place.

[David Reed (Exmouth and Exeter East) (Con)]

What assessment has the Foreign Office made of the Iranian regime employing foreign militias from countries such as Iraq and Lebanon to crush internal dissent? If that is happening, what is the international community doing to limit this activity?

[Yvette Cooper]

There is a wider issue of the impact of Iranian regime activity across the region, including supporting terrorist and extremist proxies and other organisations. We are particularly sensitive to that, and it is part of what makes this a broader issue about how we properly get peace and stability in the region. That will continue to be a central part of the discussions.

Venezuela

David Reed Excerpts

Monday 5th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Yvette Cooper]

I point out to my hon. Friend that Maduro was not recognised as a Head of State by the UK Government and by many Governments, not least because of the deep corruption, the refusal to respect the July 2024 election and the deep damage he had done, including now being investigated for crimes against humanity. My hon. Friend talked about the impact on neighbouring countries. Neighbouring countries have also suffered deep damage as a result of the Maduro regime allowing criminal gangs to operate so extensively from Venezuela, and as a result of the rapid migration of so many people from Venezuela due to the crisis.

[David Reed (Exmouth and Exeter East) (Con)]

I have listened to the Foreign Secretary for the last hour and a half and the Government’s foreign policy position on Venezuela is still completely unclear to me, so I will ask a more direct question: does the Foreign Secretary agree with the United States’ Donroe doctrine?

[Yvette Cooper]

The Monroe doctrine has been interpreted in many different ways over decades and through generations, and historians will dispute that. What I can set out is the UK’s foreign policy approach, which is to stand up for Britain’s security, prosperity and values. That is why we not only stand up for the international rule of law, but maintain crucial security alliances, such as NATO and our transatlantic partnership, which are based on laws and values.

Oral Answers to Questions

David Reed Excerpts

Tuesday 24th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Stuart Anderson (South Shropshire) (Con)]

10. What assessment his Department has made of the potential impact of the treaty with Mauritius on the transfer of sovereignty of the Chagos archipelago on the UK.

[David Reed (Exmouth and Exeter East) (Con)]

14. How much and what proportion of the funding due to be allocated to Mauritius as part of the agreement concerning the Chagos archipelago will come from his Department.

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

The Diego Garcia military base deal secures the future of the strategically critical US-UK military base. It will protect our national security for generations and ensure we maintain vital capabilities. It is our most significant contribution to the transatlantic defence and security partnership. It has been strengthened since our agreement with the previous Mauritian Government and, indeed, from the deal under discussion by the previous Government. The payments will be split between the FCDO and the Ministry of Defence, and published in the usual way. The Opposition understand the jeopardy facing the base and the necessity of the treaty, which is why they started negotiating in the first place.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Doughty]

As the Foreign Secretary has made absolutely clear, there was no UK involvement in the US strikes on Iran. The hon. Gentleman will understand that we do not comment on private conversations with our allies or on hypothetical operations.

[David Reed]

I had hoped for a more precise answer to my question. Rather than pressing again for exact figures or a departmental breakdown, let me proceed down a related line of inquiry. Is there any mechanism, legal or otherwise, that the Mauritian Government could use to reopen the Chagos negotiations or to request further financial or material assistance in a way that could result in additional cost to the British taxpayer?

[Stephen Doughty]

I have set out the costs very clearly. They average out at £101 million over the course of the deal. That compares very favourably with, for example, what France pays for its military facility in Djibouti. This treaty has been entered into in good faith by the UK and Mauritius, it will be legally binding, and we are absolutely clear that it is compliant with international law and all our other obligations.

China Audit

David Reed Excerpts

Tuesday 24th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Order. I also remind Members that it would be helpful to have short questions and answers.

[David Reed (Exmouth and Exeter East) (Con)]

On the one hand, the Defence Secretary has told the world that the UK will increase offensive cyber operations against China. On the other hand, the Deputy Prime Minister is pushing for a Chinese super-embassy in London, which will be furnished with secret data cabling. Does the Foreign Secretary see any inconsistencies in his Government’s approach to China?

[Mr Lammy]

What I see is naivety on the behalf of the hon. Gentleman. First, to be clear, the Deputy Prime Minister has not made her quasi-judicial decision. It is wrong, and he should correct the record of the House because the decision has not been made. Secondly, why would we want a situation in which the United States, under both Governments, can take the hardest approach on China, but trade is up, and in which our G7 partners understand the risks and threats of China, but all their trade is up, when under the last Government, we were in a situation where trade was down only for the UK? That cannot be right.

Middle East

David Reed Excerpts

Monday 23rd June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lammy]

We do have disagreements with the Government of Israel, and my hon. Friend knows that a few weeks ago we sanctioned two members of that Government. But I remain, and the Government remain, a friend of Israel, able to work at many different levels. We recognise the contribution that has been made to the degrading of proxies working on behalf of Iran that contribute to Iran being the worst actor on state threats globally.

[David Reed (Exmouth and Exeter East) (Con)]

If Iran chooses to close the straits of Hormuz, which the Iranian Parliament has now voted to do, what contingency options has the Foreign Secretary worked up to protect UK national interests?

Iran-Israel Conflict

David Reed Excerpts

Monday 16th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order. I urge colleagues to keep their questions short and the Foreign Secretary to keep his answers short.

[David Reed (Exmouth and Exeter East) (Con)]

Does our closest ally, the United States, agree with this position on the situation? If not, what do we differ on?

[Mr Lammy]

I refer the hon. Gentleman to the remarks made by Secretary Rubio on the outbreak of this new war and to the statements made by Donald Trump, in which he clearly indicates an off-ramp for Iran if it gets serious about diplomacy and accepts the olive branch that he extended through Steve Witkoff.

Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office

David Reed Excerpts

Thursday 15th May 2025 Written Corrections

The following extracts are from questions to the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office on 13 May 2025.

[David Reed]

Our United Kingdom and the United States are aligned in the view that a nuclear-armed Iran would pose a serious threat to global stability. With nuclear negotiations currently under way between the US and Iran, can the Secretary of State inform the House what outcome his Department would consider to be a success from a British perspective? Crucially, does he have a contingency plan if those talks fail to produce an acceptable result?

[Mr Lammy]

Iran is now producing roughly one significant quantity of highly enriched uranium every six weeks. That is 40 times above the limit in the joint comprehensive plan of action—the deal that we struck with Iran, which I have in front of me.

[Official Report, 13 May 2025; Vol. 767, c. 189.]

Written correction submitted by the Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs, the right hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy):

Oral Answers to Questions

David Reed Excerpts

Tuesday 13th May 2025 Commons Chamber

[David Reed (Exmouth and Exeter East) (Con)]

10. What discussions he has had with his US counterpart on the policy of the US Administration on Iran.

[The Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Mr David Lammy)]

The UK is supportive of US efforts to reach a nuclear deal with Iran. We have encouraged Iran to engage with President Trump’s efforts in good faith and to find a diplomatic solution. Since the beginning of May, I have raised Iran with US Secretary of State Marco Rubio and the special envoy to the middle east, Steve Witkoff. We have discussed the range of threats that Iran poses to the UK and our partners.

[Mr Lammy]

I remind the hon. Gentleman that on 4 March the UK specified Iran under the foreign influence registration scheme, which targets those who undertake malign activity in the UK. Of course we keep proscription under review. We are looking closely at the area of state threats; that is traditionally very different from the sorts of cells and terrorist communities that we do proscribe. That is why the Government continue to look at this area very carefully.

[David Reed]

Our United Kingdom and the United States are aligned in the view that a nuclear-armed Iran would pose a serious threat to global stability. With nuclear negotiations currently under way between the US and Iran, can the Secretary of State inform the House what outcome his Department would consider to be a success from a British perspective? Crucially, does he have a contingency plan if those talks fail to produce an acceptable result?

[Mr Lammy]

Iran is now producing roughly one significant quantity of highly enriched uranium every six weeks. That is 40 times above the limit in the joint comprehensive plan of action—the deal that we struck with Iran, which I have in front of me. I am really crystal clear about this. Iran must never develop a nuclear weapon; it must reverse its escalations—we have seen that in its enrichment programme; it must not carry out any critical weaponisation work; and these terms have to be fully verifiable. Unless we get that, we will see a snapback of the sanctions regime that we struck with it 10 years ago.