British Indian Ocean Territory

Priti Patel Excerpts

Wednesday 28th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Priti Patel (Witham) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House is opposed to the United Kingdom ceding sovereignty over the British Indian Ocean Territory; believes that the United Kingdom should not give £34.7 billion to Mauritius when that money could be spent on the armed forces; further believes that the Diego Garcia British Military Base and Indian Ocean Territory Bill breaches the Exchange of notes constituting an agreement concerning the availability for defence purposes of the British Indian Ocean Territory, London, 30 December 1966 with the United States, as does the UK/Mauritius: Agreement concerning the Chagos Archipelago including Diego Garcia, and therefore that the Government should not proceed with the Bill; and also believes that Parliament must approve any changes to the 1966 Exchange of notes through the process set out under the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010.

Labour’s £35 billion Chagos surrender deal is falling apart every single day. It is high time that the Prime Minister tore up this atrocious surrender treaty and put Britain’s interests, security, and hard-pressed taxpayers first. The Opposition have made that clear from day one, and have taken every opportunity to expose the deceit, falsehoods and foolishness of the approach taken by Labour. Whether it is on arguments of international law, defence and security, self-determination, the importance of the Chagossian people standing up for their rights, or the environment, it is the Conservatives who have been standing up for Britain’s national interests by unequivocally opposing this surrender treaty.

[Sir Alec Shelbrooke (Wetherby and Easingwold) (Con)]

Building on what my right hon. Friend is saying, is she not shocked that most Labour MPs cannot be bothered to turn up for this debate?

[Priti Patel]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right, and I think it demonstrates their disdain and contempt for the British people, quite frankly. It is pretty obvious that as the Prime Minister and various other Ministers travel the globe, they go around waving the white flag of surrender. [Interruption.] Government Members can sit there chuntering, but the British public can see exactly what is going on with them: they are weak, feeble and giving away the public’s money.

Had the Prime Minister—[Interruption.] The Minister is chuntering about the start of the negotiations, but this deal is on him, the Labour Government, their lefty friends and their international law agreements. [Interruption.] Perhaps the Minister would like to listen; he might learn a few things today. Had the Prime Minister and his dear friend the Attorney General—[Interruption.] Perhaps the hon. Member would like to contribute to the debate, and will put her name down to speak. If not, I suggest that she sits and listens.

Had the Prime Minister, the Attorney General, and the real Foreign Secretary, Jonathan Powell—along with those who are or were Foreign Secretary in name only—got their way, the Mauritian flag would already be flying over the Chagos archipelago, and hundreds of millions of £35 billion of taxpayers’ money would already be lining the coffers of a foreign Government.

[Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)]

I invite my right hon. Friend to challenge the Minister to deal with the issue of the treaty of Pelindaba, which I think came into force in 2009. It was designed to prevent African nuclear proliferation. If we breach that treaty by means of this deal, it would open up an opportunity for all kinds of hostile powers, including China, to site nuclear weapons in Africa. Do the Government realise that? I know that my right hon. Friend certainly does.

[Priti Patel]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. Again, it is the Opposition who have been raising the issue that this deal gives succour and strength to Britain’s enemies. All the people who are working against us—China, Russia and Iran—will accelerate their plotting with their Mauritian friends on how to undermine the operationalisation of the military base on Diego Garcia, and on how to exert their influence in the Indo-Pacific at the expense of all our interests.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the shadow Secretary of State and the Conservatives for their consistent focus on this issue. Does the shadow Secretary of State share my concerns about the long-term guarantee for the UK, the right to extend the military lease, and the right of access under the treaty? This essential base can never have any ambiguity attached to it.

[Priti Patel]

The hon. Member is absolutely right, and he speaks to my fundamental point about capitulation, surrender and the way that the Government have worked against Britain’s interests. We see that night and day, and it is unforgiveable.

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)]

My right hon. Friend is making an excellent start to this attack on the Government, but I will ask her a simple question. Should we not also dig a little deeper on the links between the Prime Minister and some of his earlier colleagues? That way, we would learn that Phillipe Sands, who was representing the Mauritian Government, had a deal done with the Russians over Crimea, in which he assured them, I understand, that the granting of independence and ownership for Mauritius would not impinge on their right to stay in Crimea. That was what brought their vote, and their support for this deal. Does that not look to my right hon. Friend as though it was absolute method traitorship?

[Priti Patel]

My right hon. Friend has made his point very clearly. This Government are not standing up for our values or interests. Nor are they making any effort to demonstrate that they are on the side of our national security. Fundamentally, that is what this debate is all about.

It is diligent work and scrutiny by Conservatives in this House and the other place that has led to the Government being forced to pause this surrender. That has been achieved by our diligent diplomatic engagement with the US Administration, by asking for over 400 parliamentary debates, by securing two Opposition day debates, and thanks to you Mr Speaker, by asking urgent question after urgent question. We are here to demand answers that they never provide, but only hide, all thanks to their shameful outright contempt for Parliament and the British public.

The Opposition have proudly made representations on behalf of the Chagossian people, who have not only been betrayed but are being threatened in Britain. Their families are being intimidated by people associated with the Government of Mauritius, who seem to be learning how to conduct transnational repression from their friends in the Chinese Communist party. This Labour Government will go down in history for many terrible things, but they can now add to that list of shame the repression and betrayal of the Chagossian people. Labour must rethink its deeply corrosive policy, which is putting at risk our security and the safety of the Chagossian people. Instead, we have a weak and feeble Prime Minister, currently on his knees in Beijing, who will do anything possible to push through this deal—a deal that has been constructed and negotiated by his left-wing international lawyer friends, whose views he seems to value much more than the British people and the Chagossian community.

We all know how this has gone completely wrong, although the Prime Minister could still take a different course. It has gone wrong because this surrender is completely unnecessary—because, as the Opposition know, it is based on an advisory opinion. Ministers have failed to give a convincing answer as to why we should accept it, and there is no answer on what enforcement mechanisms would exist, other than some hypothetical comments about the electromagnetic spectrum and the International Telecommunication Union. So tell us today, please.

We have not only a Government of incompetent politicians, but a Government of incompetent lawyers. In the words of President Trump, Labour is surrendering sovereignty “for no reason whatsoever.” Given this Labour Government’s obsession with international law, it is surprising and shocking that they are not just misinterpreting it, but have overlooked essential detail in the 1966 UK-US exchange of notes. This is now the third time I have brought the exchange of notes to the Dispatch Box in just the last week, Mr Speaker. For the avoidance of any doubt in the House or any ignorance on the Government Benches, the 1966 treaty with the USA, which establishes the military base on Diego Garcia, states that the whole of the British Indian Ocean Territory

“shall remain under United Kingdom sovereignty.”

It goes on:

“Subject to the provisions set out below the islands”—

all the Chagos islands, not just Diego Garcia—

“shall be available to meet the needs of both Governments for defense”.

This is a legally binding treaty between the United Kingdom and the United States of America on the British Indian Ocean Territory, and any attempt by the UK to surrender sovereignty over BIOT violates international law. Yet when the Government signed and published their treaty on 22 May last year, and then published their surrender Bill, there was not a single mention in either the treaty or the Bill of the need for the exchange of notes.

On Monday, in response to our urgent question, the Minister for the Overseas Territories, the hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty), said:

“we have been clear throughout that before the UK can ratify the treaty, we will need to do the following: pass primary and secondary legislation; update the UK-US agreement—the exchange of notes; and put in place arrangements on the environment, maritime security and migration”,—[Official Report, 26 January 2026; Vol. 779, c. 599.]

but this was not mentioned in any of the documents accompanying the legislation, let alone the treaty. When we have questioned this in both Houses, Ministers have merely said:

“Talks are ongoing to update the UK-US Exchange of Letters”,

but the exchange of notes was not even referred to in any of the documents accompanying the legislation.

I think this House deserves an explanation. When did the talks begin? What is the status of the talks? What is the timescale for making changes? Have the Americans raised concerns that the exchange of notes were not part of the original discussions with the US Government last year, when the Prime Minister said that the US supported the treaty? Why did the Government try to force through their surrender Bill without confirming the future of the exchange of notes?

[Dr Luke Evans (Hinckley and Bosworth) (Con)]

Negotiations may well be ongoing, but the key question is whether the UK can make a unilateral decision to give away sovereignty without the blessing of the US. This question was posed three times on Monday, and the Minister simply said it is under discussion. Ministers need to answer directly today, so I pose this question now: can this be done unilaterally or not?

[Priti Patel]

Well, this is the perfect debate and opportunity for the Government to answer. Perhaps the Minister would like to intervene right now—I would be very happy for her to answer that question.

I have another question for the Minister: have the American Administration questioned why the British Government would want to give up sovereignty of the British Indian Ocean Territory and, in doing so, violate international law? For once, the Minister needs to just be straightforward and give precise answers to the precise questions asked by those on the Opposition Benches, because the Government have continuously failed to do so.

British taxpayers, by the way, rightly want an explanation as to why their taxes should line the pockets of the Government of Mauritius without full and proper scrutiny and the disclosure and transparency that they deserve. Perhaps the Minister can tell us what exactly the National Security Adviser, Mr Powell, and the former ambassador, Lord Mandelson—remember him?—told the US Administration about the surrender treaty. It is well known that the Government are run by their friends and cronies, and it is also well known that Jonathan Powell, a friend of China, accelerated the negotiations when he was appointed envoy in September 2024. And can anyone in this House really trust anything that Lord Mandelson would have been involved in? That is definitely a question for the Government.

[Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)]

Will the right hon. Lady agree that we stand at a critical point for not just this nation but the United States of America, and that it too should have regard to the fact that up to this point, the islands have been under the control of a nuclear power with a navy, and that this treaty would hand them over to a country more than 1,000 miles away with no navy. Does that not create an obvious geopolitical vacuum to which we are all vulnerable? Should the Americans in particular not be very wary of that?

[Priti Patel]

As is often the case, the hon. and learned Gentleman is spot on. That is exactly why the Minister has this marvellous opportunity today to explain this to the House and the British public.

Let us not forget that President Trump, the commander-in-chief, said that the UK is giving away extremely important land in an “act of great stupidity”—I think the House would agree with that comment—and that:

“There is no doubt that China and Russia have noticed this act of total weakness.”

Has there been any Minister-to-Minister engagement with the US Administration on this? Had the Prime Minister spoken directly to the President on this matter before kowtowing to China? I asked this very question here on Monday, but the Minister for the Overseas Territories, who is not present, could not answer. There is a new opportunity today for the Minister for the Indo-Pacific, the hon. Member for Feltham and Heston (Seema Malhotra), to tell us: yes or no?

On that point, it is also worth asking whether, should there be a change in the proposed US-UK treaty, it will come to Parliament through the 21-day Constitutional Reform and Governance Act process? Again, we asked this question on Monday, and the Minister refused to answer. What are the Government trying to hide? As Labour failed to provide the House with scrutiny under the previous CRaG process, it is clearly happy to give away this sovereign territory and billions in taxpayers’ money without being held to account.

Given the Labour Government’s abject failure to clarify these points, it took Conservatives in the other place to take action, leading to this pause of the treaty. Instead of showing some humility and transparency and commitment to engage in proper scrutiny, however, Labour has sought to gaslight its critics—and, by the way, the British public—with a Government spokesperson telling the media:

“This is irresponsible and reckless behaviour by peers”.

Blaming peers—Conservatives, Cross Benchers and others—for doing their job diligently is another new low from a Labour Government seeking to undermine accountability, democracy, scrutiny and accountability. When the junior Minister for the Indo-Pacific responds, I hope she will speak on behalf of this feeble Labour Government and apologise to the British people for their appalling and discredited conduct.

[Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)]

Like my right hon. Friend, I am proud of the role that Conservative peers have played in this, but can we also take a moment to pay credit to Back-Bench Labour MPs? I think it is important to note that they are not here. Practically the only Government Member present, scribbling away, is the hon. Member for Rugby (John Slinger), whom I admire a great deal, but who is loyalist to his very core. If he is the only Member prepared to speak up, the truth is that Labour MPs have voted with their feet, and they now agree with my right hon. Friend that this deal has to go.

[Priti Patel]

I commend my right hon. Friend for his intervention. He has highlighted a lot of things there, which, in the interest of time, I am grateful for, because we have a lot of other colleagues who want to speak. It is worth pointing out that the Government will have a few of their Members who like to climb the greasy pole—there is one, who is not present today, who is now the trade envoy for Mauritius because he spoke up so frequently for the Government.

Ultimately, this is about the security and defence of our country. [Interruption.] No, no. The Government have a lot of questions to answer, because their feeble remarks in defence of this entire process have been absolutely shameful. That includes on China, with not just the Government’s relationship with China, but the relationship between the Governments of China and Russia. We have had completely misleading remarks about China and Mauritius, when it is the Opposition who have constantly called out that cosy relationship. I have even brought the Minister some press cuttings, but, as she has responsibility for the Indo-Pacific, she may have seen them already. None the less, I advise her to read the website of the Chinese Foreign Affairs Ministry. It provides a weekly diary of its friendly relationship with the Government of Mauritius.

On the Pelindaba treaty, we have already heard the comments about what this now means. It is absolutely wrong to inhibit and restrict our ability when it comes to stationing a nuclear deterrent on Diego Garcia, and it is right that we on the Conservatives Benches continue to question this.

Before I conclude, let me discuss the money. It is an absolute disgrace that this House has not had full disclosure on the money. It is in the public interest for Ministers to tell the truth, to be held to account, and to stop hiding the true cost by misrepresenting the positions of the Office for Budget Responsibility and the Government Actuary’s Department. That is utterly shameful. Today, Labour MPs have an opportunity to join us—

[Graham Stuart]

Where are they?

[Priti Patel]

They are all in hiding, because they are embarrassed. They can join us and stop this surrender. They can tell their constituents that they voted to save a British territory from being lost, that they stood up for our defence and security, that they voted to save £35 billion from disgracefully being handed over to a foreign Government while their taxes at home go up and their public services are squeezed, and that they voted to defend the rights of the Chagossians. Alternatively, they can sleepwalk through the Division Lobby like sheep, defending the indefensible and backing another Labour weak policy and failure of their enfeebled Prime Minister. Conservatives have opposed this deal at every stage from day one and we will continue to do so. We will fight to kill this Bill to defend both British sovereignty and Britain’s pride and national interests.

Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill

Priti Patel Excerpts

Monday 26th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Priti Patel (Witham) (Con)]

(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs if she will make a statement on the Government’s plans for the Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill.

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

I hope that you make a swift recovery, Mr Speaker—having injured my ankle just before Christmas, I know how painful it can be.

On 22 May, the Diego Garcia treaty was signed and laid before the House. As the Defence Secretary told the House on the day of signature, the treaty secures the strategically important UK-US military base on the island of Diego Garcia. The base, as I have said in the House many times, is essential to the security of the United Kingdom and our key allies, including the United States. It is essential to keeping British people safe. It is also one of our most significant contributions to the transatlantic defence and security partnership, because it enables rapid deployment of operations and forces across the middle east, east Africa and south Asia, helping to combat some of the most challenging threats, including threats from terrorism and hostile states. Its unique strategic location creates real military advantage across the Indo-Pacific. The facility has also helped the collection of data used to support counter-terrorism operations against, for instance, high-value Islamic State targets in recent years.

As we have made clear many times in the House, the UK will never compromise on our national security, and, as we have been repeatedly making clear, the agreement that we have struck is vital for protecting our national security, guaranteeing the long-term future of a base that is vital for both the UK and the United States, which had been under threat, as the Opposition fully understood and on which they were briefed. The deal secures the operations of the joint UK-US base on Diego Garcia for generations. It was publicly welcomed by the United States, Australia and all other Five Eyes partners, as well as key international partners, including India, Japan and South Korea.

Just last week, the House spent two hours debating the Lords amendments to the Bill. The Opposition will know, of course, that the programming of business in the other place is a matter for the other place and not for us. However, the Lords’ consideration of Commons amendments has been delayed because the Opposition tabled a wrecking amendment hours before the other place rose—[Interruption]—I think this just shows the measure of them, Mr Speaker—and a day before a scheduled debate. This is irresponsible and reckless behaviour from the official Opposition in the second House, using programming tactics to frustrate the implementation of a treaty on a critical national security matter.

I have to say that stands in stark contrast to the reasoned and constructive criticisms, questions and suggestions from Members in other parties, and indeed from Cross Benchers. We have engaged with those in good faith at every stage, and we will continue to do so. This is on the official Opposition, because their amendment is not only unnecessary; it is toying with our national security. It is only right that we take time to consider the next steps on programming, because we remain confident that this treaty is the best way forward.

The Lords will consider the Commons amendments in due course, and that will be announced in the usual way. The Government are committed to the deal that protects the joint UK-US base on Diego Garcia. Some have sought to sabotage the process through procedural motions and parliamentary stunts. We, instead, are focused on delivering this Bill to protect our national security.

[Priti Patel]

Labour’s Chagos surrender humiliation continues. Today the Government were hoping to force through their surrender Bill in the House of Lords—giving away territory, handing over £35 billion to a foreign Government allied to China, and betraying the Chagossians. But after the Conservatives pointed out how their surrender would violate our existing international obligations and challenged the Government, the Government pulled the Bill from the House of Lords Order Paper to avoid being defeated.

In its rush to appease left-wing lawyer friends, Labour overlooked the 1966 treaty between the UK and the US. I have a copy in front of me for the Minister to read. It states that the British Indian Ocean Territory

“shall remain under the United Kingdom’s sovereignty.”

Does the Minister accept that the Bill and the treaty with Mauritius violate the 1966 treaty with the US? Following the US President saying that the UK is giving away the Chagos Islands

“FOR NO REASON WHATSOVER…There is no doubt that China and Russia have noticed this act of total weakness…The UK giving away extremely important land is an act of GREAT STUPIDITY”,

can the Minister tell us what discussions have taken place with the US Administration in the last few days and whether they have communicated that they are now reviewing the deal?

Britain’s weak Prime Minister seemed to suggest in the House last week that he was being bullied by the President, which is quite a personal statement. Has the Prime Minister had a direct discussion with the President about Chagos in the last week, and can the Minister confirm that any changes to our 1966 treaty with the US will undergo parliamentary scrutiny under the 21-day Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010 process, with time given for debates and votes? Does he accept that it would be logical for this House to consider amendments to the 1996 treaty with the US before proceeding with the Bill? Can the Minister confirm that upon appointment as the British Indian Ocean Territory envoy and before becoming National Security Adviser, Jonathan Powell, a friend of China, accelerated the negotiations with Mauritius to surrender the Chagos Islands? It is time Labour saw sense, scrapped this treaty and stood up for Britain.

[Stephen Doughty]

I did think that perhaps the right hon. Lady might have something more, but the tone, the braying and the noise reflect a simple political stunt from the Conservatives, which is deeply regretful when we are talking about such important matters of national security.

The right hon. Lady asks specifically about the US-UK exchange of notes. I am genuinely surprised about that, because we have been clear throughout that before the UK can ratify the treaty, we will need to do the following: pass primary and secondary legislation; update the UK-US agreement—the exchange of notes; and put in place arrangements on the environment, maritime security and migration.

Perhaps the Conservatives have only just clocked on to the need to update the UK-US agreement, but the Minister in the other place answered the noble Lord Callanan’s question on 22 December:

“Talks are ongoing to update the UK-US Exchange of Letters on the operation of the Diego Garcia Base.”

We have been clear about that throughout, so presenting this as some sort of gotcha and saying that we have not looked at the law is absolute nonsense. Frankly, it is deeply, deeply irresponsible.

We have made excellent progress towards finalising an updated UK-US agreement. For the record—because the Conservatives will not have looked at any of the history of this—the UK-US agreement was updated in 1972 and 1976, twice in 1987, and in 1999, so this is a regular process. We have had to update it, for a range of reasons, in the past. We were always clear about the need to put in place the necessary domestic and international legal processes to deal with this matter. The idea that this is something new, or some sort of gotcha, is simply for the birds.

The right hon. Lady asks about the contact with the United States. We remain engaged with the United States on a daily basis on matters relating to our national security. We will continue to engage with it on this important matter and on the importance of the deal to secure US and UK interests, and allay any concerns, as we have done throughout this process. There is nothing new in that, and it is absolutely right that we do so.

The right hon. Lady’s claims about China were simply rubbish. I am really surprised that the Conservatives continue to play these shocking party political games.

Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill

Priti Patel Excerpts

Consideration of Lords amendments
Tuesday 20th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

The advice I am getting from the Clerk is that that is incorrect because the amendments were disagreed to in the Lords, so we must continue with the debate in hand, as on the Order Paper.

[Priti Patel (Witham) (Con)]

Labour’s Chagos surrender Bill is back, and this House has its last chance to act in the national interest, defend the rights of the Chagossian community and protect the money of hard-pressed British taxpayers, who are being expected to foot a colossal bill of £35 billion, which is being given to a foreign Government to—guess what?—cut their taxes, while our taxes rise.

I put on record the thanks of Conservative Members to the other place for their scrutiny, and their diligence in once again holding this Government to account. When Labour plotted to deny this House a debate and a vote on the surrender treaty during the 21-day process under the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010, it was Conservatives in the House of Lords who forced a debate and a vote. When Labour limited the time for this House to give the Bill the line-by-line scrutiny it needed, it was the House of Lords that stepped in and made time available. When this Labour Government ignored and neglected the views of the Chagossian community, it was the House of Lords and the International Relations and Defence Committee that came to the rescue and organised a survey, giving important insights into Chagossians’ concerns about the Government of Mauritius and the future of their ancestral home. When Labour refused to accept any amendments to modify and improve this £35 billion surrender Bill, it was the House of Lords that made important changes, which we are debating today.

Let me be clear: this is a Bill that the Conservatives have fought against at every single stage. We will not accept this deal to surrender British sovereignty; it is a deal that we will continue to oppose and challenge Ministers on. Every vote today is a vote to kill this Bill. We will keep on voting against this Bill and opposing it until the Government—and, one would hope, the Prime Minister—see sense, withdraw it and tear up the treaty. We are not the only ones vociferously opposing this, because we now know that the President of the United States is against it; he says that it is being done “for no reason whatsoever”, and that China and Russia will

“have noticed this act of total weakness.”

[Esther McVey]

I asked the Minister what the reasons were for the Government signing away the Chagos islands. He could not give any reasons. The President of the United States says that the Government are giving the islands away “for no reason whatsoever”, so can my right hon. Friend give us any reason to sign off this deal today?

[Priti Patel]

Let me remind my right hon. Friend exactly what the President of the United States said. He has said that this is being done “for no reason whatsoever”, and that

“There is no doubt that China and Russia have noticed this act of total weakness.”

The previous Foreign Secretary, now the Deputy Prime Minister, is on the record as saying:

“If President Trump doesn’t like the deal, the deal will not go forward… they’ve got to be happy with the deal or there is no deal”,

so why has Labour continued to press this Bill?

In the light of the President’s comments, can the Minister tell us what will happen to the status of the 1966 exchange of notes between the UK and the United States, which states clearly that the British Indian Ocean Territory

“shall remain under United Kingdom sovereignty”?

What is the impact on that agreement? Is it being changed?

[Simon Hoare]

When I and other colleagues intervened on the Minister, we seemed to get a rather la-la land answer about the Government’s response to what the President of the United States has said. In terms, the Minister said, “I’ll go and have a word with him and put him straight.” Well, good luck with that! The Government, having prayed in aid for so long the unalloyed support of the United States, have now lost it. Is my right hon. Friend as confused as I am to see that they are pretending that the incident never happened? It is like the “Bobby in the shower” moment in “Dallas”.

[Priti Patel]

I thank my hon. Friend for his comments. The Opposition are completely against this deal, and the President of the United States has said that it is going ahead “for no reason whatsoever”. It seems to me that the Government are still on hold to the President of the United States.

[Tom Hayes (Bournemouth East) (Lab)]

I am too young to have seen that scene in “Dallas”, so that went slightly over my head. Does the right hon. Member agree that we cannot read too much into a social media post? After all, the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage) has said about the right hon. Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick):

“Jenrick is a fraud. I’ve always thought so”,

and

“Don’t believe a word that he says”.

Is it not true that we cannot always stick with the same mindset on social media?

--- Later in debate ---

[Priti Patel]

Let me say, for the benefit of everyone in this House, that the United States of America is our strongest ally when it comes to the national security of our country, and rightly so. When the President of the United States raises concerns, we should listen to them, and I would like to think that this Government will act on them.

Let me turn to the details of Lords amendment 5, which would introduce new provisions on transparency about the costs that British taxpayers are being forced to pay. It is vital that this House sees the full costs, as Labour has never acknowledged or accepted the financial costs and burdens of this Bill for the taxpayer. As the House knows, the Conservative party had to force the information out of the Government through freedom of information requests. Labour Ministers have had the bare-faced cheek to come here and give us their valuation of £3.5 billion, whereas the Government Actuary’s Department tells us that it is £35 billion.

In most areas of Government spending, Labour likes to brag about how much is being spent—welfare is a familiar theme that it likes to go on about—but on this issue, it is using a valuation technique to downplay the amount. We have heard the Prime Minister claim that this is

“how the OBR counts the cost”.

However, the Office for Budget Responsibility has said:

“The OBR does not hold any information on the costs or financial impacts of the specific treaty over the future sovereignty of the Chagos Archipelago. We can confirm that we have not been contacted by HM Treasury, MoD or the Governments Actuary’s Department”,

so what is the truth? This amendment would help to bring about more openness and transparency on the costs.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the shadow Minister and the Conservative party on this amendment, which is crucial. The key is whether the British Government have fully briefed the US about the risks to the Pelindaba treaty that will result from Diego Garcia becoming sovereign to Mauritius, because if they have, President Trump will be very glad to comment on that. Does she agree that the thing to do now might be to contact President Trump?

[Priti Patel]

The hon. Gentleman is right that that treaty relates to nuclear weapons coming on to the base at Diego Garcia. That is why our emphasis must be on the strength of the relationship between our two countries when it comes to our national security—this House will not disagree on that—but it is deeply concerning that the President of the United States has explicitly expressed his disapproval of this entire process and this giveaway. To address the hon. Member’s point about the nuclear treaty, we should absolutely be engaging with our closest ally, the United States of America.

[Stuart Anderson]

It is not as if the President of the United States has not expressed disapproval; he says it is an “act of great stupidity” to do this deal. Does my right hon. Friend think that it is ironic that the Secretary of State for Defence made the first statement to the House on the subject last May, but with less than 12 hours to go until what could have been the final stage of the Bill, the President has absolutely trashed the deal?

[Priti Patel]

My hon. Friend is right, and what he says speaks to it being complete nonsense for the Government to have proceeded with the Bill. It is an act of gross self-harm and, to quote the President of the United Sates, an “act of great stupidity” that will have significant consequences for this Government.

[Sir Julian Lewis]

Has my right hon. Friend noticed that the Minister, who is, shall we say, a flexible friend in the cause of the Government’s policies, has been relying on the fact that, in the past, other Members of Donald Trump’s Government in America have been saying supportive things about the Bill? Would she like to cast a wager with the Minister, as I would, that 24 hours after Donald Trump changed his tune, the Government will change their tune in exactly the same direction?

[Priti Patel]

If the Government wish to U-turn and scrap the Bill, we would welcome that and support it; there is no question about that.

I turn to amendment 1. It is not just when it comes to money, which is addressed in amendment 5, that the Government’s claims lack any credibility; amendment 1, which deals with the surrender of British sovereignty, leaves us weaker and, as we have heard from my right hon. and hon. Friends, will compromise the long-term operations of the base.

We are required to give notice to the Government of Mauritius about a range of activities taking place on the base. As the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) pointed out, Mauritius is a signatory to the Pelindaba treaty, and if that applies to Diego Garcia, it would prohibit the stationing and storage of nuclear weapons there. This is very serious. While the Prime Minister has claimed that China, Russia and Iran oppose the surrender, we know that they back it; they publicly endorse it, and they will seek to gain from this lack of sovereignty.

These points are all relevant to amendment 1, as it requires the Government to renegotiate article 11 of the treaty, so that payments cease should the use of the base for military purposes became impossible. Obviously, we hope that that scenario does not materialise, as we believe that Diego Garcia is a vital cornerstone of our national security and defence, and should remain so. However, as the treaty stands, if we stop using the base, the UK is still bound to make pretty significant payments over the 99-year lease period; it is a huge cost. Amendment 1 is therefore a vital point of contingency.

We would like the whole agreement binned, but we believe that it is reasonable and practical for the Government to accept this change. When he sums up, will the Minister explain why he is not prepared to consider the amendment, and to renegotiate parts of the treaty?

[Graham Stuart]

Does my right hon. Friend, like me, feel some sympathy for the Minister? He has rested his whole case on the support of the United States of America. The Deputy Prime Minister said that the Bill would not go ahead if the American President did not support it. We all remember the great mystery about who shot J.R., but there is no mystery about who shot the Minister’s fox—it was the President of the United States last night, and the Minister’s whole case has crumbled.

[Priti Patel]

My right hon. Friend is spot on. This is the critical moment when the Government should tear up the Bill and scrap this disaster. It should not proceed at all.

[Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)]

Has my right hon. Friend noticed, like me, that all the military veterans in the Government and on the Labour Benches—with one notable exception—seem to have abandoned their post today? I have counted about nine veterans on our Benches. If more veterans had been on the Labour Benches, perhaps they could have told the Front Benchers about the forlorn hope. The forlorn hope were the people who were sent out either to defend the indefensible or to go on suicidal attack missions. They were in search of either promotion or pardons for sins of the past. Does she agree that the Front Benchers have been sent out here to defend the indefensible?

[Priti Patel]

rose—

[Stephen Doughty]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. May I correct the record? The hon. Member for Spelthorne (Lincoln Jopp) says that there are not any veterans. I have served this country as an Army reservist, and I am very proud to have done so. We have many other Labour Members who have served and are veterans; they absolutely defend the national security of this country and have done so at many different stages. That comment is not accurate and needs to be corrected.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I thank—[Interruption.] Order. I can make a decision; I do not need any help. That was not exactly a point of order, Minister. It was much more of an intervention, which may have been taken by the Member who was about to rise to her feet. However, the Minister has got his point on the record. We need to move at a pace; otherwise, we will not get speakers in.

[Priti Patel]

Although Lords amendments 2 and 3 have not been selected, I will briefly comment on them for members of the Chagossian community watching this debate. Owing to the actions of the Conservatives in the House of Lords, the Government were forced to slow down the ratification process for a brief moment while a survey was undertaken in the other place by the International Relations and Defence Committee. That was very important, because something like 3,000 respondents gave a view. They gave a very clear statement as to the direction of travel on the Chagos Islands—their ancestral home—and they want them to remain British.

[David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)]

Will my right hon. Friend give way?

[Priti Patel]

I will very briefly give way—this will be the last intervention I take.

[David Simmonds]

If this is such a good deal, why does my right hon. Friend think that one of my local authorities is having to house hundreds of Chagossians who are fleeing to the UK to escape its consequences?

--- Later in debate ---

[Priti Patel]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I am aware that his local authority is under a range of pressures from Chagossians who are basically fleeing to the United Kingdom. They have raised many serious concerns about the Government of Mauritius and expressed a clear wish for the Chagossian community to be respected, engaged, stood up for absolutely and to have their voices listened to.

The Chagossian community has been treated appallingly. There is a sense of betrayal of the community, and that is absolutely wrong. Although we cannot vote on Lords amendments 2 and 3 today, it is still in the gift of the Government to see sense and take action to facilitate the Chagossians’ right of self-determination. That is absolutely vital.

This entire surrender Bill is wrong, which is why we on the Conservative Benches will keep on opposing it. I have said this before, and I will say it again: to all the Labour MPs who have been whipped and commanded to enter the Division Lobby to back the surrender Bill and support the Government’s plan to remove the Lords amendments, I say, “You are being used to service the interests of your Prime Minister, rather than your country and your constituents. You are being forced to vote through paying billions to a foreign Government who are allied with our enemies and growing closer to them, while your councils and schools see their budgets squeezed and cut. You are being forced to be complicit in the betrayal of the Chagossian community, but tonight you have the chance to do the right thing and join us in the Division Lobby.”

The Conservative party will continue to stand up for our national interest, British taxpayers and the Chagossian community. That is why we will keep opposing Labour’s £35 billion Chagos surrender Bill.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

Oral Answers to Questions

Priti Patel Excerpts

Tuesday 20th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Foreign Secretary.

[Priti Patel (Witham) (Con)]

The Prime Minister said that Five Eyes partners, including the United States, backed the Chagos surrender Bill, but today the American President has publicly opposed it, rightly citing the very concerns that we Conservative Members have raised about the malign influence of China and Russia, and their benefiting directly from the surrender of the Chagos islands. Is President Trump right? Given that Labour’s Chagos surrender Bill will cost £35 billion, compromise our national security and betray the rights of the Chagossian community, when will the Government finally see sense and scrap this shameful treaty?

[Stephen Doughty]

Again, the right hon. Lady has made wild claims about costs. What she says is simply not the case. We have been absolutely clear that the UK will never compromise our national security. As we have made clear repeatedly, the agreement that we have struck is vital to protecting our national security and that of our allies, and to guaranteeing the long-term future of a base that is crucial for the UK and the United States. Our deal secures the operation of the joint US-UK base on Diego Garcia for generations. It has backing from across the Five Eyes, as well as from other international partners. I remind the right hon. Lady that, in May, the US Secretary of State said,

“The Trump Administration determined that this agreement secures the long-term, stable, and effective operation of the joint US-UK military facility at Diego Garcia.”

We will of course have discussions with the US Administration in coming days to remind them of the strength of this deal, and of how it secures the base, and I am surprised that these comments have been made in the context of difficult conversations about Greenland. The right hon. Lady joins us in standing for its sovereignty and right to self-determination, so I urge her to be a little more reflective in her comments.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Foreign Secretary.

[Priti Patel (Witham) (Con)]

The Government have just given planning permission to the new Chinese super-hub embassy—the document is 240 pages; there it is for us to read—while Jimmy Lai, a British national, continues to be imprisoned in appalling conditions on bogus political charges under the disgraceful Hong Kong national security law. Does the Foreign Secretary agree that it is unacceptable for China to be rewarded with this spy hub in the heart of London while Jimmy languishes in prison?

[Yvette Cooper]

The shadow Foreign Secretary will know that we have made the strongest of criticisms of the decision on Jimmy Lai. We continue to pursue that issue with the Chinese Government and to stress the urgent need for him to be released immediately on humanitarian grounds. She has raised the issue of the independent planning decision, and she will know the independent planning processes that need to be gone through. I understand that the Security Minister will be making a statement to the House on this topic shortly. All I would point out to her is that diplomatic consent was given by her hero Boris Johnson. She had many years as Home Secretary to pursue any concerns she had.

[Priti Patel]

In the light of the right hon. Lady’s remarks and the fact that Jimmy Lai’s sentencing is expected soon, does she agree that when the Prime Minister goes to kowtow to Beijing and comes back with no movement on Jimmy Lai’s release, that trip should be regarded as a failure of British diplomacy?

[Yvette Cooper]

We believe that it is exactly because we have deep concerns about the issues around Jimmy Lai and the need for his urgent humanitarian release, but also because of wider security issues, that we should engage with the Chinese Government. Refusing to engage with the Chinese Government, when we have such serious issues and concerns, would be irresponsible.

Arctic Security

Priti Patel Excerpts

Monday 19th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Priti Patel (Witham) (Con)]

I begin by expressing our condolences to the people of Spain following the devasting train crash yesterday.

The Conservative party is clear that the US Administration’s decision to announce tariffs on the UK over Greenland is completely wrong. People in the United Kingdom and the United States will face higher costs because of the proposed tariffs. The tariffs will be yet another burden for businesses across our country, and they go against the United States’ recent national security strategy, which says:

“It is natural and just that all nations put their interests first and guard their sovereignty…We stand for the sovereign rights of nations”.

We respect the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Greenland and Denmark. The future of Greenland must be for its people and Denmark—and for them alone—to decide. Denmark is a valued NATO ally and a leading contributor to Ukraine; indeed, it is one of the highest per capita donors. We have also worked with Denmark on Arctic security, and it is imperative that we and our European NATO allies now show a determination to go much further and back up our words with actions.

The security challenges in the Arctic must be tackled head-on, particularly the threat of Russia. Greenland is of geopolitical significance to every NATO member state, including the United Kingdom. The best way to tackle threats is to work together in unison, as NATO allies, because America’s national security is indivisible from NATO’s—they are one and the same. That collective security is the basis of our national defence architecture.

Collective action in the immediate term is how we should work together to address those challenges, so will the Foreign Secretary say what resources the Government will put in place to prioritise or repurpose their inventory to contribute to NATO’s High North missions? What are the Government doing to look at how, working with the US, we can build on existing joint defence agreements to broker a greater consensual military presence on Greenland from both sides of the Atlantic? What is the Government’s plan to help lead international efforts to secure the safety of Arctic shipping routes as they become more open, stave off exploitation of Greenland’s critical minerals by malign actors, protect the region’s fisheries, and boost digital connectivity and security, particularly at sea?

Has the Foreign Secretary discussed this issue with Secretary Rubio and, if not, what will she propose when she speaks to him, including on the security issue in the High North? UK leadership matters at this challenging moment for NATO, and we should advance a push from all NATO allies to thwart Putin’s ambitions in the High North. It is incumbent on the United Kingdom to help to lead that charge, and our ability to convene outside the EU is a strength that we should put into play.

The Conservatives have also called on the Prime Minister to push for an urgent NATO meeting that includes the United States especially. Will the Government pursue that, so that a position can be reconciled behind closed doors and we can present a united front to our adversaries?

It is important for our economy and for businesses that the Government secure a reversal of the position on tariffs. This is not a moment for megaphone diplomacy, but can the Foreign Secretary share the Government’s strategy for bringing the US round to revoking those tariffs before their kick-in date? Can she also confirm the UK’s position on countermeasures?

Under the tariff deal agreed in the spring, the UK secured a reduced 10% tariff for 100,000 vehicles. Does the Foreign Secretary expect the 10% Greenland tariff to be added to that existing 10% tariff, effectively doubling the tax on British car exports to 20% from 1 February?

Pharmaceuticals were also a cornerstone of the agreement on tariff-free exemptions. Does the Foreign Secretary expect life sciences to be protected from the new baseline tariff, or will the 100% tariff threatened in late 2025 now be accelerated? What specific support will her colleagues in the Department for Business and Trade provide for small and medium-sized business exporters, which could face an overnight increase of 10% in the costs for their largest export market? What assessment have the Government made of the potential economic impact of tariffs, and what can be done to mitigate that?

This is a time for cool but determined heads, because the stakes are significant and enormous for our country. This is not just a big geopolitical moment; it is a moment of real concern for businesses and exporters in our country. We are counting on British diplomacy to reverse the tariff situation and bring a swift end to the debacle over Greenland. The US is our closest ally: the way that our security agencies operate together is unparalleled in modern history and our bilateral trading relationship dwarfs every other. In this moment, we need to summon and leverage the strength and depth of that special relationship.

[Yvette Cooper]

I thank the shadow Foreign Secretary for her response and welcome her support for the sovereignty of Greenland and Denmark and for the strengthening of support for Arctic security against the Russian threat, which she is right to highlight. She asked what work can be done to establish constructive discussions, and indeed, I talked to the Danish Foreign Minister about that today. Denmark has set out a process to have detailed talks with the US on how to strengthen security around Greenland, being very clear that the issue of sovereignty is non-negotiable, but that there are many issues to be discussed around strengthening security.

I spoke to Secretary Rubio today and we agreed to take forward further discussions on the issue. I assure the shadow Foreign Secretary that we will be pursuing every avenue for discussions directly with the US and with all our close allies, the purpose being to prevent the tariffs and the trade war that would be in no one’s interest, and to replace the threats about sovereignty and tariffs with a constructive, shared approach to our security, including security in the Arctic.

There is a critical issue here. The Arctic is the gateway for the Russian northern fleet to be able to threaten the UK, western Europe, the US and Canada. That is why this is a shared threat and requires a shared response. That is why, as part of the discussions in Norway and Finland last week, I proposed that NATO should establish an Arctic sentry, similar to the approach that NATO has taken to the Baltic Sentry and the Eastern Sentry, with co-ordination that brings together and looks in a strategic way at all the issues around security across the Arctic. We believe that it is through those partnerships and alliances that we can best strengthen our shared security against the threats that should concern us most.

Iran: Protests

Priti Patel Excerpts

Monday 19th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Priti Patel (Witham) (Con)]

(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office if she will make a statement on the British Government’s response to the Iranian regime’s brutal crackdown on protests.

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

The United Kingdom condemns in the strongest of terms the horrendous killing of Iranian protesters and the most brutal and bloody repression against public protest in Iran for at least 13 years. The Iranian authorities must immediately end the abhorrent killings and uphold the human rights and fundamental freedoms of Iran’s citizens, including the right to freedom of expression, to seek, receive and impart information, and the freedom of association and peaceful assembly, without fear of reprisal. The Iranian security forces must be held accountable for the deliberate use of violence that has claimed thousands of lives.

On 13 January, the Foreign Secretary was clear in her statement to the House and delivered that message directly to the Iranian Foreign Minister. The Prime Minister has issued a joint statement alongside the Chancellor of Germany and the President of France. On 15 January, alongside our G7 partners, we strongly condemned Iran and announced our readiness to impose additional restrictive measures if Iran continues to crack down on protests and dissent in violation of its international human rights obligations. We publicly called out Iran’s crackdown at the UN Security Council meeting on 15 January, and we have now secured a special session of the Human Rights Council in Geneva, which will take place on 23 January. On 13 January, I summoned the Iranian ambassador to underline the gravity of this moment and to call on Iran to answer for the horrific reports that we have heard.

On 1 October, alongside our E3 partners, France and Germany, the UK implemented snapback in full by reinstating the six previously terminated United Nations sanctions resolutions on Iran. We are going further by bringing forward legislation to implement more sectoral measures. We have already designated key players in Iran’s oil, energy, nuclear and financial systems, and further measures will target finance, energy, transport and other significant industries. We will continue to work with the European Union and our other partners to explore what additional measures might be needed in response to these most recent developments.

[Priti Patel]

Since last week’s statement, we have seen more information about the horrific brutality that the despotic regime in Tehran has inflicted and the bloodshed it is responsible for against its own citizens. Reports from medics in country say that the figure could be as high as 18,000 men, women and children dead, slaughtered in cold blood. Reports also suggest that up to 360,000 people could be injured, with those wounded left dying due to shortages of blood in hospitals. This is an affront to humanity, and there must be accountability, including for the use of execution show trials.

The regime is one of the most consistently vile and brutal in the world. The UK Government cannot stand by, and we need to understand what more they are doing in response to the latest barbaric revelations and actions. What is the Government’s assessment of the numbers killed and injured and the brutal tactics used by the regime? What do they make of reports that the regime may have used chemical weapons in the recent attacks on its own civilians? What assessment has been undertaken of those imprisoned and being tortured? The principle victims of this vile regime are the Iranian people themselves. What did their ambassador say when he was summoned last week to the Foreign Office, and what did the Iranian Foreign Minister say when he was called by the Foreign Secretary?

Once again, protesters in Iran seek freedom from tyranny, and the response from the west has been shameful as Iranians have been slaughtered. Iran continues to pose a threat to us all and to our interests with its sponsoring of terrorism and its nuclear programme. The US State Department remarked on Saturday that it had

“heard reports that the Islamic Republic is preparing options to target American bases”.

Given that Britain has many joint military bases with the US in the region, what is being done to secure those assets? What is the latest assessment of Iran’s nuclear enrichment programme and ballistic missile capability, and what is being done to strip Iran of those weapons?

With phase two of the Gaza peace plan being implemented, what is being done to stop Iranian sponsorship of Hamas and other terrorist groups undermining efforts to secure peace in the region? This is not a time to be timid as the response to these continued atrocities continues to be shamefully muted.

[Mr Falconer]

The right hon. Lady asks important questions. Let me turn first to the question of numbers. I do not want to give the House an artificial sense of precision when the internet has remained restricted since 8 January. There clearly have been many deaths; we believe in the thousands. We will not put a more precise figure on it at this time because to do so would be at risk of misleading the House that we have a more precise picture than we do. That does not in any way take away from the strength of our condemnation.

The Iranian regime has provided a variety of rationales, both in private and in public. It has claimed that it was responding to armed protesters, and it has complained that others are seeking to interfere in its internal affairs. Let me be absolutely clear: there is no excuse for the scale of bloodshed that we have seen in relation to those protests. It is not to seek to interfere in Iran’s internal affairs to say that the protesters have rights—rights of assembly, rights to protest and rights to have their internet turned back on.

Iran

Priti Patel Excerpts

Tuesday 13th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Priti Patel (Witham) (Con)]

I thank the Foreign Secretary for giving me sight of her statement earlier. Every day for the last two weeks across Iran, we have seen brave and courageous men, women and children standing in defiance of a cruel, barbaric and despotic regime that has suppressed lives and freedom for over five decades. People are being arrested, attacked and murdered in the streets. It has been reported that over 2,000 people have now been killed, with one report even suggesting that the real figure is over 12,000, and over 10,000 have been arrested, according to Human Rights Activists in Iran.

Towns have been flooded with soldiers to suppress protests, and hospitals are overwhelmed with the injured and murdered. Thousands upon thousands of Iran’s young, including the 23-year-old fashion student Rubina Aminian, have been shot, killed and buried by the side of roads as they called for a free Iran. We have seen reports of executions due to take place for those arrested just days earlier. As we mourn the victims of Tehran’s atrocities, we cannot let their dreams be buried. These were ordinary Iranians doing extraordinary things, fighting for their freedom. We stand with those brave Iranians. We back their calls for freedom, and we join in demands for the regime to end.

This is a regime whose cruelty goes beyond the brutality we have seen in recent days. The theocratic terrorists in Iran have for too long threatened regional security, with Hamas, Hezbollah and the Houthis backed by Iran. They have backed Putin’s war in Ukraine and China’s campaign of repression. They have ignored demands to stop their nuclear weapons programme as they circumvent sanctions. They are holding British nationals Craig and Lindsay Foreman in cruel captivity. Iran is a hostile state. It is a threat to our country, to the middle east and to the world, and Britain must have the resolve to deal with it.

I ask the Foreign Secretary: where is the Government’s resolve to stand up to Iran, to back those protesting and to work to bring about the end of the regime’s cruelty? As Iranian citizens are sacrificing their lives in the fight for their own liberation, what message of hope and reassurance does she give to those risking their lives on the streets of Iran each day? What is being done to challenge the Iranian regime over its violence? What is her assessment of the numbers killed and injured? It is right that the Iranian ambassador has finally been summoned, but why has this happened only today? The Foreign Secretary says she has spoken on the phone to her counterpart. What was his response? Did she raise the Foreman case with him? What was his response?

The Iranian regime now claims to have the protest under “total control”. What assessment have the Government made of this claim? Britain and this House should stand with those campaigning for a free and democratic future, and if change comes, we should be ready to support this change. Given the statements from President Trump, what discussions have taken place with the US Administration over their plans, and are we aligned with the US and our regional partners? Are all scenarios being considered and planned for, including the potential use of UK/US military bases to stop the brutality of the Iranian regime? If the regime is being weakened, what assessment has been made of the risk of Iran retaliating and escalating plots to undermine our security here?

Last year, the US and Israel took direct action to protect western and regional interests from Iran’s nuclear threats. The Government refused to give a view on those actions at the time. They sat on the fence in a feeble attempt not to upset their Back-Bench MPs. As people die fighting for their rights and for democracy, this is no time for weakness. Britain should be robust in cutting off the Iranian regime and removing the funds it relies on. I know that the Foreign Secretary has touched on some of this, but will she state what further direct sanctions will be placed specifically on the regime and particularly on its key henchmen? Will she confirm that no one from that regime will ever step foot in our country and threaten the security of Britain, should they try to flee Iran? Why has it taken so long to implement the reintroduction of sanctions under snapback?

On the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, in opposition Labour said that it would proscribe the IRGC, but it has not done so in government. It is incumbent upon the Government to share with the House their reasons for not doing so. The Foreign Secretary referred to the report from Jonathan Hall, which she says they will take forward, but that was eight months ago, so when is this coming and why was Downing Street briefing yesterday that proscription would not happen? Will the IRGC be proscribed?

The Opposition will work with the Government in the national interest, and in the interests of global security and stability, to pass legislation and other measures needed to keep us safe from Iran and put maximum pressure on its despotic regime. I have a suggestion for the Foreign Secretary. Instead of legislating for the £35 billion surrender of Chagos, will she use the time we have in this House to deal with the IRGC and the Iranian regime, in order to keep us safe? Will she use that £35 billion to bolster our defences, because at this critical moment Britain must do all we can to stand with Iranians fighting for their freedom, and to protect them and us from Tehran’s threat.

[Yvette Cooper]

I agree with the shadow Foreign Secretary in her condemnation of the brutality and horrendous actions of the Iranian regime and the threats that it poses. She will know that when she was Home Secretary and I was shadow Home Secretary, we strongly supported the national security actions on Iran. In fact, I said specifically that I hoped the House would be able to come together to support our national security and defend our democracy, and I urge Conservative Members to take the same cross-party approach to defending not only our national security but regional stability. The scale of the truly brutal, horrendous actions in Iran means that we should stand together in condemnation of that action, and in the action that we need to take in concert with our allies, including on further sanctions and further immediate pressure on the regime.

The right hon. Lady asked for my assessment of the scale of what is happening. Like her, I have seen the reports that suggest that 2,000 people might have been killed. There might have been more. My fear is that the number will prove to be significantly higher, because we are currently getting so little information as a result of the internet blackout that the regime has instigated as it tries to hide what it has done and the consequences. That is why we are talking to other countries about what can be done swiftly to try to restore some sort of internet access or phone communication to people across Iran.

The right hon. Lady asks about the Foremans. I raised the Foremans’ case directly with the Iranian regime just before Christmas, and we continue to raise it because it is a huge consular priority for us. We are also in close touch not just with the US but with other allies across Europe and the G7 to look at what further sanctions measures we need to take.

The right hon. Lady also asked about the snapback, and she will know that this has been a running issue for many years. Following the non-compliance over the nuclear regime, the previous Conservative Government did not take the snapback action. We took that action, and it was supported on a cross-party basis. I hope again that will remain the case, because it was clear that that compliance was not taking place. That work was done in conjunction not just with the E3—France and Germany—but with US allies; there have been many conversations about this matter with them as well.

The right hon. Lady also raised the issue around the IRGC. She will know that this issue was raised with the previous Government over many years. I have particularly raised the need to reform the legislation. That is exactly why I commissioned the Jonathan Hall review: I was concerned that legislation designed for terrorism threats was not applicable in the same way to state-backed threats, and we need to ensure that we can deal with the hybrid and state-backed threats that the country now faces.

The international community needs to come together on this. In the face of this brutality from the Iranian regime, we need not just concerted action around sanctions and the enforcement of existing sanctions, but overwhelming pressure. We will pursue that through the UN and through every avenue we can. The world is watching Iran, the world needs to be watching and the world needs to stand together against the brutality we have seen.

Middle East and North Africa

Priti Patel Excerpts

Monday 5th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Priti Patel (Witham) (Con)]

Britain’s place in the world matters, and the Opposition are clear about the fact that our influence should be used to its fullest effect to support efforts to combat the complex and dangerous conflicts and tensions in the middle east about which we speak all too often in the House. From Israel to Gaza, Iran, Syria and Yemen, the UK can and should be able to make a difference.

The Opposition stand with the brave Iranians in their fight for freedom against their terrorist-supporting, despotic and oppressive Government. Their fight for freedom must prevail. What discussions are taking place with our partners in the region about the actions that can be taken to stop the regime’s cruel and barbaric acts against those who are campaigning for freedom? Iran threatens our domestic security by continuing its nuclear weapons programme, supplying weapons and drones to Russia, and backing China and its repression in Hong Kong. Britain must send it a clear signal by imposing more sanctions on it, and take action to stop the sanctions-busting that is taking place through cryptocurrencies and other methods that facilitate and bankroll this tyrannical regime. Why have the Government, and the Minister in his statement today, been silent on those specific issues, and where is the plan to keep Britain safe from Iran?

What is being done to secure the immediate release from Iran’s cruel captivity of Lindsay and Craig Foreman, the two British nationals who, tragically, are still in captivity? I appreciate that the Minister referred to the call that took place on 19 December, but what practical measures are being taken?

In Gaza, Hamas continue to breach the ceasefire. They have refused to release the body of the remaining Israeli hostage, Ran Gvili, which has been in terrorist captivity for more than 820 days. What pressure has been put on Hamas to adhere to the terms of the ceasefire, to disarm and to bring Ran back to his family?

The Minister mentioned aid. Will he confirm that 4,200 trucks are delivering aid to Gaza each week in accordance with the 20-point peace plan, and that that is being overseen by the Co-ordination of Government Activities in the Territories and the Civil-Military Co-ordination Centre? Is he meeting representatives of the CMCC and COGAT to observe the operational delivery of this aid and the role that the United States is playing in securing aid delivery?

As for the licensing of non-governmental organisations, can the Minister tell us how many agencies have undergone the licensing process and the contribution that they are making? We have heard a great deal in recent weeks and months about terrorists infiltrating aid agencies and diverting aid. What discussions has the Minister had with his Israeli counterparts about working with them to find practical solutions that will address the serious concerns that have been raised, so that more aid can get through and not be compromised by terrorists? On reforms to the Palestinian Authority, why are the Government still backing them with taxpayers’ money while they continue with the pay-to-slay programme? When will this practice stop?

I agree with the Minister’s comments about Yemen, the conflict there, and the humanitarian suffering. Every single successive Government have worked tirelessly to secure more aid and to support global efforts to address the suffering in Yemen, but what direct discussions has the Minister had with the United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia, which are both long-standing partners and players, particularly on the recent dispute and tensions? Is there a bridging role that Britain can play? What planning is under way with our partners in the region to respond to further threats from the Houthis?

On Syria, the actions targeted at Daesh were absolutely essential, but there are still many concerns about stability in Syria. When will progress be made on tackling sectarian violence, protecting minority rights and delivering democratic transition? What quantity of chemical weapons has been disposed of? What measures are being taken to stop the criminality, the gangs, the drugs and the weapons?

Finally, on the el-Fattah case, I welcome the way in which the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office has instigated its inquiry. When will the inquiry into what has happened be completed? Were the Government informed by any other Departments about the views that were expressed? I recognise what the Minister has said thus far. Will Ministers—probably now in the Home Office—pick up the case and work fast to strip Alaa Abd el-Fattah of his citizenship, as the Opposition have been requesting over the recess?

[Mr Falconer]

I can confirm that I have been in touch with my counterparts in both the UAE and Saudi Arabia, and indeed that I spoke to the Yemeni Foreign Minister this morning. We are in intensive discussions with all our partners in the region on the questions on Yemen, which are very significant. I did not speak about the Houthis, but they remain a very significant threat; I saw some of that threat during my visit to Yemen in November.

In relation to Syria, I thank the shadow Foreign Secretary for her spirit of cross-party co-operation on the strikes that we conducted. There remain very significant outstanding questions about the security of Syria, which I am sure she and other Members of the House will have been tracking. The violence at the end of December is indeed concerning. There has been progress on a range of questions. We need follow-through on the independent reviews that were conducted into the violence, both in the coastal areas and in the south, including on accountability measures. I have made those points, as has the Foreign Secretary, directly to our Syrian counterparts.

The shadow Foreign Secretary asks the important questions about chemical weapons. I am very pleased that an Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons programme is now engaged to ensure the destruction of chemical weapons. That will be of real interest to this House, given the extent to which chemical weapons in Syria have been discussed here, even before I was elected. That is welcome progress, and it is important for regional security.

On Iran, the shadow Foreign Secretary is right to highlight the bravery of the protesters. I am sure that she will have seen our spokesperson’s statement over the past few days, as well as having heard the remarks that I have just made. We are, of course, speaking to our partners in the region. We are careful in the way we discuss matters in Iran. It is absolutely obvious that some in the leadership of Iran wish to portray these protests as externally animated. Of course they are not. This is a response from the Iranian people themselves.

In relation to Mr el-Fattah and the next steps, he was—as the shadow Foreign Secretary knows well—provided with citizenship by the previous Government. That is not something that is stripped lightly. She will have heard the remarks of the Home Secretary during Home Office oral questions earlier today. As for the timeline of the review, we intend it to be swift. We want to draw a line under this matter as quickly as we can and ensure that, in all other cases, appropriate lessons are being learned.

On aid in Gaza, I would like to be clear. We are talking about charities such as Oxfam and Save the Children—credible charities supported by the British public, who have donated generously over Christmas. There have, of course, been concerns in relation to aid in Gaza. We have ensured that wherever they have been raised, they have been investigated, but we should not let that take away from the credibility of the organisations involved. It is vital that those aid agencies be able to work; 30% of Gazans cannot afford basic food.

The shadow Foreign Secretary is right to say that there has been an increase in aid going into Gaza, but the amount is not yet in line with what is in the 20-point plan. Fewer UN truck shipments are going in than was agreed; I think it was agreed that 250 aid trucks from the UN would go in per day, but only 147 are going in. It is welcome that commercial goods are getting into Gaza, but as I said in my statement, it is vital that lifesaving humanitarian aid—particularly tents and medicines—get in.

Africa: New Approach

Priti Patel Excerpts

Tuesday 16th December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

[Priti Patel (Witham) (Con)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Adam Jogee) for securing this important urgent question. May I say that I do not think it is acceptable for the Minister to just regurgitate the written ministerial statement from yesterday?

There are some fundamental issues about what should be the Government’s strategy. First and foremost, it was wrong to simply say that the approach that the Government inherited was wrong. I should know that, having recapitalised the Commonwealth Development Corporation, with British International Investment now having a huge amount of annual investment and reinvestment every single year on economic development in Africa. Fundamentally, whether it is from Gavi, the Global Fund or the sustainable development goals, these are founding principles that are now being advanced across Africa, and the Government really should do much more to stand up and defend them.

In the written ministerial statement yesterday there was no reference to China’s belt and road debt traps, Russia’s nefarious activities or the Wagner Group in Africa. Yet before our eyes, we see the axis of authoritarian states pillaging African countries for its natural resources. Where is the substance for a plan of action to counter the growing influence of that axis?

As we have already heard, there is also scant regard in the Government’s plan for the Commonwealth and its role in upholding democracy, capacity building and freedoms. Why is that the case? Are the Government working with the new secretary-general on her economic vision, which would clearly benefit the UK and Africa?

We do not know how the Government intend to support the African Union or rise to the challenges in the continent, and sadly, we are seeing so much conflict right now. Can the Minister explain what the UK will do to leverage our conflict resolution expertise to good effect?

Finally, on illegal migration, can I remind the Minister and the Government that they intentionally tore up engagement with a key Commonwealth partner? Rwanda sought to provide leadership on illegal migration and stop young men leaving the continent at great risk because it wanted to create an economic development partnership with the UK. That surely speaks to some of the serious challenges that this Government now need to pick up and confront.

[Mr Falconer]

I addressed the questions of Russia and China somewhat in my previous answer, but let me reassure the shadow Foreign Secretary how central those issues of conflict are to us. I travelled to Libya in recent months, where, as she knows, Russia has been active, particularly in the west. The Wagner Group may have been renamed the Africa Corps, but it remains as malign a threat to Africa and, indeed, British interests as it ever was. We are active across the continent in seeking to counter its baleful influence.

The right hon. Lady talks about migration pressures from Africa. We are working in places such as Algeria, Tunisia, and indeed Libya, where small boats cross into Mediterranean Europe—

[Priti Patel]

We always have been.

[Mr Falconer]

I am glad to hear a moment of uncharacteristic harmony between the two Benches.

Where the work that was started by the previous Government was functioning, we continued it. Where it was not—such as the Rwanda deal that the right hon. Lady referred to—we stopped it.

Chagossians: Trust Fund and Resettlement

Priti Patel Excerpts

Tuesday 16th December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Priti Patel (Witham) (Con)]

(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs if she will make a statement on the rights of British Chagossians to access the trust fund and resettle on the Chagos archipelago.

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

On 22 May the Diego Garcia treaty was signed and laid before the House. As the Defence Secretary told the House on the day of signature, the treaty secures the strategically important UK-US military base on the island of Diego Garcia. The base is essential to the security of the UK and our key allies, and to keeping British people safe. Under the terms of the treaty, the UK will capitalise a £40 million trust fund for the benefit of Chagossians, which will be established by Mauritius.

On 12 December the Mauritian Government approved the introduction of primary legislation to establish the trust fund. The Mauritian Bill confirms the principle that the trust fund will be operated for Chagossians and by Chagossians. Decisions on the use of funds will be taken by a trust fund management board. The board will comprise 12 members, seven of whom will be Chagossians, ensuring majority representation. The chair of the trust fund will be a Chagossian, selected by the Chagossian members. Following extensive representations and engagement by this Government, the Mauritian Bill also confirms that a UK-based Chagossian representative will sit on the board, alongside representatives living in Mauritius and the Seychelles. The UK high commissioner to Mauritius will also attend board meetings. We welcome these commitments by Mauritius, which will ensure that the trust fund reflects the full spectrum of perspectives within the Chagossian community.

The treaty enables Mauritius to develop a programme of resettlement on islands other than Diego Garcia. This agreement is the only viable path to resettlement on the archipelago. The UK Government have been in talks with Mauritius to ensure that the programme is open to all Chagossians, irrespective of their country of residence. The Mauritian Government confirmed on 12 December that eligibility to resettle will apply to Chagossians born on the archipelago before 31 December 1973, and to the children of a parent who was born on the archipelago before that date.

As of April 2025, 94% of Chagossians with British nationality also had Mauritian citizenship. However, any UK-based Chagossian who does not hold Mauritian citizenship and who meets the criteria will be eligible for it and therefore able to participate in any future programme of resettlement. All Chagossians will remain eligible for British citizenship under the current citizenship pathway, and they will be able to hold both British and Mauritian citizenship. Mauritius has also confirmed that civil status documents issued by the Government of Mauritius will continue to record the place of birth as the Chagos archipelago for all those born there. Where for any reason this has not been the case, the Government of Mauritius will review and amend the documents as necessary.

This landmark agreement secures the future of the strategically critical UK-US military base. As the Defence Secretary told the House, there was no alternative but to act. In so doing, we have protected Britons at home and overseas.

[Priti Patel]

Thank you, Mr Speaker, for granting this urgent question. We have basically just heard from the Minister that the Government’s betrayal of the British Chagossian community continues. We have just had more details on how bad this deal is for the Chagossian community. Labour’s surrender of British sovereign territory means that future decisions on access to and resettlement on most of the archipelago, the ancestral home of Chagossians, are now left in the hands of—guess what?—a foreign Government.

Can the Minister confirm if British Chagossians will need to become Mauritian citizens to have any hope of being entitled to or eligible for resettlement under the future resettlement programme? That is a simple yes or no—it sounds like the answer is an absolute yes. This is a country that, until only weeks ago, had an offence on its statute books of “misrepresenting the sovereignty of Mauritius”, and it is a country from which hundreds of Chagossians have fled to Britain in recent weeks. By the way, housing this community across the country is adding to the pressure on local authorities. Does the Minister recognise the sheer madness of this plan?

The Government have confirmed that, despite this Government giving the Government of Mauritius £40 million of British taxpayers’ money for the trust fund, Britain has no proper representation on the board and no control over how the funds are spent. There will be just one UK-based Chagossian representative on the board, chosen not by the British Chagossian community, but—guess what?—by the Prime Minister of Mauritius. Can the Minister tell us if he thinks this is acceptable, and did the Government—I cannot say the Minister specifically—press for greater Chagossian and British representation on the board? Can he tell us exactly what UK delegations have been doing in Mauritius this year, who they have met and what has been discussed?

On the so-called contact group, why have the Government refused to seek the views of the British Chagossian community on this surrender treaty? They have instead chosen to outsource this vital function to a House of Lords Select Committee, whose survey, as we have seen online, has been open to manipulation by and interference from the Mauritian Government.

It is no wonder that the UN Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination has called the Government out for their betrayal of the Chagossian community. That is massively embarrassing, particularly when we have a Government of human rights lawyers. What is the Minister’s response to this UN committee? Will he suspend the ratification of this appalling treaty, which is what the UN calls for, and importantly, say sorry to hard-pressed taxpayers in this country, who are forking out £35 billion for this shameful betrayal?

[Mr Falconer]

In the spirit of Christmas, I will not respond to allegations of betrayal. I suspect that Conservative Members will want to chunter throughout this discussion, but they might remind themselves who started these negotiations and on what basis. No doubt they will wish throughout this session to focus on transfer of sovereignty, but they might remind themselves what their negotiating position was when they were in government.

Let me turn to the questions asked by the right hon. Lady. I am pleased to inform the House that we met the Chagossian contact group on both 2 and 8 December. The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty), who leads on these issues, has been very keen to ensure that he hears the full range of views from Chagossians in the UK. I understand, as I know Opposition Members also understand, that there is a range of views among the Chagossian community—they do not speak with one voice—and this Government are trying to listen to all of those views.

The shadow Foreign Secretary asked about the ratification of the treaty. As she knows, the Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill will have its Third Reading in the House of Lords in the new year. No doubt this will be discussed further then, as it was in this House. This treaty will be scrutinised properly in the normal way, and all of these points will be surfaced.