NATO Summit

Priti Patel Excerpts

Thursday 9th July 2026 Commons Chamber

[Priti Patel (Witham) (Con)]

I am grateful to the Foreign Secretary for advance sight of her statement. I start by recognising some of the positive commitments in the NATO summit communiqué, including the important reaffirmation of the alliance’s commitment to collective defence under article 5 and to the transatlantic bond, and the essential new defence procurement announcements. The recognition of Ukraine as a contributor to transatlantic security is overdue, and we back the reiteration of the alliance’s support for Ukraine. I share the Foreign Secretary’s disgust at the Russian attacks in Kyiv in recent days.

The outcome of the Ukrainian war matters profoundly to NATO, as does our collective commitment to lead the world in helping Ukraine turn the tide in this war. We all know that the best deterrent against an invasion like this ever happening again is Russia’s expulsion from Ukraine. Now is the time to ramp up our support for Ukraine. Will the Government provide Ukraine with additional military capabilities or broker any new international packages of support, as we did so effectively at the outset of the war? Following the boarding of a Russian shadow fleet ship last month, will there be a sustained effort to disrupt the fleet’s operations? Will the Foreign Secretary commit to leading international pressure on the refineries buying Russian crude oil in order to cut the financial flows that are funding Russia’s illegal war?

The NATO communiqué refers to the conflict in Iran and touches on the strait of Hormuz. As I said this morning in the urgent question, this despotic terrorist regime, which has been illegally attacking commercial shipping in the strait and our allies, including Bahrain, Kuwait and Oman’s ships and territory, all while repressing its own people in the most brutal ways imaginable, must be made to feel the consequences of its actions.

I put on the record our solidarity with Oman following the outrageous breach of its sovereignty by Iran. We understand that Oman has agreed to work with Britain and France to ensure that its territorial waters remain safe. Last week in a joint statement with the French, Downing Street said:

“The UK and France also stand ready to deploy the wider Multinational Military Mission to support freedom of navigation in the Strait of Hormuz.”

What does that mean in practice? Will there be a deployment? What will be the scale of the deployment? What will it consist of and over what timeframe? How will we reassure our strategic and security partners in the region of our commitment, so that they do not think we have stepped back, particularly given the rising tide of attacks from Iran? What opportunity will we have in this House to scrutinise and debate the Government’s plans?

As Defence Secretary, my good friend Ben Wallace invested millions in the development of cutting-edge autonomous minehunters. In his previous role as Minister for Defence Procurement, the shadow Defence Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge), delivered Britain’s first ever defence drone strategy in 2024, which emphasised the use of uncrewed drones in the maritime domain, including for mine detection. Will either of those capabilities be deployed in the mission?

It is vital that Britain has capabilities to operate in theatres around the world, and of course that requires cash now, which the current Labour Administration are refusing to provide. Britain is already spending less of its GDP on defence than Poland, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, Norway, the United States, Denmark, Greece and Finland. How can we expect others to find more for defence when we are not leading by example? Because this Labour Government, in the words of the former Defence Secretary, the right hon. Member for Rawmarsh and Conisbrough (John Healey), have been “unable” and “unwilling” to provide the money we need to keep Britain safe, our country faces a huge shortfall in the years ahead. By the end of this decade, Britain will be nowhere near the 3% and barely ahead of where we are now, while all our allies continue to surge. I do not need to remind the Foreign Secretary of the numbers, but Germany is set to spend 3.7% of GDP by 2030, while Sweden has pledged to reach 3.5%, as have other countries.

There will be a change of Labour leadership in the coming weeks. The right hon. Member for Makerfield (Andy Burnham) has been left to find £4.7 billion at his next Budget, and there is no serious detail about the billions of pounds of so-called efficiency savings that this Government have identified. As the Foreign Secretary’s counterpart, the Polish Foreign Minister, said of Britain under Labour:

“You’re spending something like £65 billion on defence and £360 billion on welfare. Lucky you, you must not feel any danger”.

In reality, this Government are prepared to plough billions into welfare while short-changing defence. We want to change that, and I ask the Foreign Secretary again: will she work with us to make progress on this? This is a serious time—Britain is under threat—and we need to step up in a significant way.

The Foreign Secretary also mentioned Sudan and the horrific situation in El Obeid. We know that words are not enough; action is needed. I agree with her on the need for the arms embargo to be extended, and the two warring parties must be pressed into a ceasefire.

[Yvette Cooper]

I thank the shadow Foreign Secretary for her response, particularly her support for the commitments made in Ankara and the continuing condemnation of the Russian strikes. It has been an important part of the cross-party debates in this House and across the whole country that we have stood united behind Ukraine and in solidarity with it, and long must that continue.

The right hon. Lady is right that we will need to maintain the pressure on Russia. We see that as being about increasing sanctions; continuing to apply pressure through sanctions and maritime services bans; continuing with our military support for Ukraine, both directly and in partnership with our European allies, including through the loans for Ukraine that we continue to provide; and, crucially, providing energy infrastructure support and resilience—Ukraine needs the resilience to get through the winter, which we know is when Russia most heavily targets the civilian population. We will maintain that support. In fact, it is because of our commitment to the long-term future of Ukraine that we have signed a 100-year partnership between the United Kingdom and Ukraine in the spirit of solidarity.

I welcome the right hon. Lady’s condemnation of Iran’s behaviour. It is telling that, despite having signed a memorandum of understanding with the United States, Iran seems to persist in the view that it has the right to control the strait of Hormuz, which is an international shipping route, and to attack commercial ships in Omani waters. That is a violation of Oman’s sovereignty, as well as a violation of the law of the sea. That is why we have been so strong in our condemnation and in seeking to mobilise countries across the world to put pressure on Iran and to get it to recognise the importance of the whole world’s support for freedom of navigation, the law of the sea and getting the global economy moving again.

The right hon. Lady raised the issue of defence investment. She will understand that we are increasing investment in defence at a rapid pace—at the steepest pace since the cold war—and have made commitments to go further, but I should point out that it was her party that cut defence spending by 20%.

[Priti Patel]

Times have changed.

[Yvette Cooper]

The shadow Foreign Secretary says from a sedentary position that times have changed. She is right: times did change. Times changed when Russia invaded Crimea. That was the evidence that the post-cold war peace dividend had gone, and yet it took her party 10 years to recognise that defence spending needed to increase. [Interruption.] For most of that period—

Iran Conflict: Ceasefire

Priti Patel Excerpts

Thursday 9th July 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 Iran’s violation of the ceasefire.

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

We strongly condemn the outrageous Iranian attacks on the territory or vessels of our Gulf partners Bahrain, Qatar, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and Kuwait. This is a serious escalation. Strikes into countries in the region and their waters are a clear violation of international law and must stop. I have been in touch with my counterparts from all the mentioned countries to express our solidarity and condemn these attacks.

Iran’s attacks on civilian vessels were in Omani waters. The UK stands with Oman, with its sovereignty over its own territorial waters, and for the principle and the law of freedom of navigation both in the strait and across the world. We stand with our partners in calling for de-escalation and a return to diplomacy. We want a durable, negotiated peace and the strait of Hormuz to fully reopen.

The dangerous re-escalation over the past few days and continued attacks hurt everybody. The greatest impact is, of course, felt by the poorest and the most vulnerable. Our priority now is ensuring unimpeded transit passage through the strait without the threat of violence, tolls, fees or conditions. The ceasefire must deliver predictable access rather than ad hoc, case-by-case transits. We will continue to stand up for international law as reflected in the United Nations convention on the law of the sea, freedom of navigation, global navigational rights, seafarer safety and the consistent application of existing rules.

[Priti Patel]

The terrorist regime in Tehran has once again violated the ceasefire, illegally attacking commercial shipping in the strait of Hormuz and striking our allies in the region, including Bahrain and Kuwait. These new assaults in the strait on at least three tankers were the most in a single day since April, according to the UN International Maritime Organisation. Earlier this week, the Iranians said they targeted Salman port in Bahrain, where Britain and the US operate naval bases.

What were the Government doing when British assets were in danger and our friends and security allies were being attacked by Iran? What exactly are the Government doing to help protect the thousands of British nationals in the region who once again find themselves under rocket fire from Iran? Our security allies once looked to the UK to be a reliable and dependable partner, but their confidence is increasingly shaken. How will the Government put that right? This is a time for action, not words.

I have asked again and again what are the British Government doing, or what have they done to date, through the comprehensive security integration and prosperity agreement to support Bahrain? The NATO Secretary-General said that the strikes by the US were “absolutely necessary”—do the Government agree?

We have had little of substance from the Government in recent days, other than the Foreign Secretary’s telly remarks when she said yesterday that she was “very concerned” by the Iranian strikes. The US Administration have announced that they are reimposing oil sanctions on Iran—of course, oil funds its terrorism. When will the Government stop the UK’s financial system being used to launder Iranian terrorist funds? What is the Government’s assessment about whether the ceasefire framework and the 60-day period in the agreement remain?

Let us be honest: the fact that Iran continues to breach the ceasefire and threatens our interests on a daily basis demonstrates that the Government have failed to have a clear plan to get defence spending to 3% of GDP by the end of the decade, leaving our country exposed and our security at risk. While Ministers are putting their job security ahead of the defence and the interests of this country, this discredited Labour Government have failed to offer solutions to the most serious and significant conflict that the world has seen in decades or to be part of any negotiations. Britain has a huge stake in the future of the middle east, but under Labour our interests have been neglected and our standing in the world has fallen.

[Mr Falconer]

I do not quite know what to say to that. I am sure that the shadow Foreign Secretary will know—she can look me in the eye—that it is unlikely to be the debates around the defence investment plan that led to strikes in Iran and the Gulf over the past few days. I am here to talk about serious questions of war and peace, and I hope we can avoid party politics in doing so.

Sudan

Priti Patel Excerpts

Thursday 25th June 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 intensification of fighting in Sudan and diplomatic efforts to press the warring parties into a ceasefire.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Chris Elmore)]

Thank you, Mr Speaker, for granting this urgent question. The war in Sudan has now entered its fourth devastating year. There is no military solution to the conflict, and this path promises only devastation for Sudan. We need an immediate and urgent ceasefire, we need those responsible for countless atrocities to be held to account and we need a pathway to peace.

This is a crucial moment for Sudan, and reports of a possible RSF offensive at El Obeid are deeply concerning. Last year, we saw unimaginable horrors unfold in El Fasher, and the world failed the people of El Fasher. We cannot allow that to happen again. Dozens of drone strikes have hit El Obeid over the past two weeks, killing civilians and leading to severe fuel shortages, sharp food price increases and increasing challenges to the water supply. The risk of atrocities and horrific humanitarian consequences for civilians is high.

The UK has been clear that the RSF must comply with international law, civilians must be able to leave freely and safely, and all parties must allow rapid, safe and unhindered humanitarian access. On 18 June, as reports emerged, the Foreign Secretary immediately called on the RSF to pull back, alongside a joint statement with partners in the coalition for atrocity prevention that urged de-escalation. The UK has also rallied support at the UN Security Council to drive international action to end the war. On 20 June, we worked with partners to raise the alarm over the worsening situation in El Obeid, pressing for an end to the fighting, the protection of civilians and unimpeded humanitarian access.

Just this week, we strengthened those calls in a joint statement with the Foreign Ministers of France, Germany, Ireland, Italy, the Netherlands and Norway. We are urgently engaging with our international partners and pressing those with influence to call on the RSF to pull back and bring all parties to the negotiating table. The Foreign Secretary personally raised this with counterparts in Egypt during her recent visit to Cairo, as well as with partners in the United Arab Emirates, Ethiopia and the United States. The UK is the third largest humanitarian donor, and we are providing £146 million in aid, while doubling support for local responders to £15 million to ensure lifesaving supplies reach those on the frontline.

Now must be the moment for the international community to stand together to bring this devastating conflict to an end. There is no military solution. We need an immediate, urgent humanitarian truce. The UK is working closely with the UN envoy, Pekka Haavisto, the United States and Quad partners to drive a united global effort in pushing the parties into serious talks, demanding accountability for atrocities and clearing, without delay, every barrier to lifesaving aid.

--- Later in debate ---

[Priti Patel]

The world’s worst humanitarian crisis is now threatening to sink into even more harrowing depths. The disregard for human life and the violence in El Obeid is shocking, and the major new offensive simply must not happen. The attacks and destruction of civilian infrastructure and supply lines that we have already seen are beyond all our comprehension.

Words alone, whether from the UK or the United Nations Security Council, will not stop the fighting. The Minister needs to explain how words are going to turn into action. Will it be made clear that, if there is destruction or obstruction of lifesaving British aid, there will be consequences for the perpetrators? What new measures will the Government bring to go after the leadership of these warring parties and the organisations that are fuelling and funding the violence? This is like no other war, and the brutal and dehumanising nature of this violence and conflict cannot be ignored, so what are the Government doing to end this cycle of endless killing?

What has the UK recently contributed to the US efforts to press the warring parties into a ceasefire? Has the UK been contributing to the Sudan Quintet’s civilian dialogue process? What more can the UK do to support evidence collection of the atrocities, and then move the process on to widespread prosecutions? The UK will soon assume the presidency of the financial taskforce that has to look at the illicit funding that is driving this war. What can the Minister say about that process and what the United Kingdom will do?

I also expect the Minister to respond to the concerns outlined on Tuesday at the International Development Committee that the British Government allegedly failed to act on intelligence and policy proposals put forward by third parties regarding impending mass atrocities in El Fasher. How does the Minister reconcile that account with the way in which the conflict has been handled by the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office since the Government took responsibility in July 2024?

For Britain’s national security, we need action to end this war and support a transition to peaceful civilian rule. We do not want to see more destabilisation spanning all the way from the Sahel to the middle east. We cannot have more threats to our security and to regional security in the Red sea, or more Iranian or Russian influence, and we cannot see ungoverned spaces where terrorist groups plot to destabilise and undermine our security and that of our allies.

[Chris Elmore]

In relation to additional funding and support, and the ask of the shadow Foreign Secretary on turning words into action, that is what the Government are doing. We are protecting funding for humanitarian support for Sudan. We are additionally putting in money for emergency response rooms in El Obeid. We are actively working at every level to bring about a peaceful resolution to the conflict.

I anticipated that the Foreign Secretary would raise the claims made yesterday in the IDC; I am sure that other Members will as well. I have to tell the House that we completely reject those claims. The UK acted swiftly, including on 13 June 2024, when the previous Government were in office. We penned the UN Security Council resolution. We demanded that the RSF halt the siege in the city. As part of further work in November 2024, we attempted a follow-up UN resolution. We have also issued further sanctions across the piece. Of course, there are lessons learned in any response to international conflict, but I have to tell the House that we do not accept the conditions in what was set out yesterday in the IDC.

On the wider response, the shadow Foreign Secretary will know that the Foreign Secretary has raised this matter at the highest levels, including when we chaired the Security Council in February. She has worked with partners across the Quad and the United States, and even this Tuesday was raising with the UN Secretary-General the need for further international intervention on a multilateral basis to bring about a peaceful resolution. On conflict resolution and a response to the people who are committing the atrocities, yesterday I was in calls with counterparts in Angola on working to build the international coalition on atrocity prevention and evidence gathering, to ensure that people can be held to account, and that prosecutions can take place for these horrendous crimes.

The shadow Foreign Secretary is right: what is happening in Sudan is one of the greatest travesties of our generation. The situation is horrendous, whether it is on sexual violence against women and girls or the sheer scale of civilian killings. The Government will continue to do all that we can to bring the perpetrators to account, to ensure aid enters Sudan, and to stop any conflict becoming more widespread.

Oral Answers to Questions

Priti Patel Excerpts

Tuesday 16th June 2026 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Foreign Secretary.

[Priti Patel (Witham) (Con)]

I echo your sombre words about Jo Cox, Mr Speaker. Her memory and her family are in our thoughts today.

The United Kingdom’s long-standing strategic, security, defence and intelligence relationship with the United States is crucial for us and for our allies. Can the Foreign Secretary tell us what role Britain has played in the negotiations between the United States and the middle east in relation to Iran, given our historic links to partners in the region? Have the Government seen the US-Iran agreement, and what is Britain’s role in shaping future foreign policy and the security architecture in the middle east?

[Yvette Cooper]

The shadow Foreign Secretary has made an immensely important point. I spoke to Secretary of State Rubio on Friday about the final stages of the discussions that were taking place before the memorandum of understanding was agreed. It is just the start of many further phases of work, negotiations and discussions, including discussions on nuclear power—we are clear about the fact that Iran must never obtain a nuclear weapon, and we stand ready to support those detailed and technical talks—and on the importance of reopening the strait of Hormuz. We have engaged in discussions not just with the US but with France, with which we have been building the maritime mission, and also with partners in the Gulf, so we can ensure that freedom of navigation is restored as swiftly as possible.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Foreign Secretary.

[Priti Patel (Witham) (Con)]

What steps are being taken to investigate Daesh fighters who have returned to Britain and prosecute them for their crimes, including sexual violence and rape against the Yazidis and others? Given the importance of ensuring that there is accountability and reform of institutions to root out the risk of exploitation from the UN, charities and even the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, what is the Government’s response to the suspension of Karim Khan from the International Criminal Court for allegations of sexual misconduct?

[Yvette Cooper]

The shadow Foreign Secretary will understand that I cannot comment in detail on individual cases, but we do take allegations extremely seriously in any institution. I can also tell her that we expect to see accountability for crimes of sexual violence, whether that is by individuals who come to the UK or issues across the world. We are also supporting expert evidence gathering, including in areas of conflict, so that there cannot be impunity for crimes against women and girls.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

Can I please just remind everyone that we are on topicals? I call the shadow Foreign Secretary.

[Priti Patel (Witham) (Con)]

China’s human rights record is appalling. Did the Foreign Secretary know, while she was enjoying the hospitality of the Chinese Communist party earlier this month, that Chinese slave labour is being used to supply solar panels across UK schools and hospitals to meet Labour’s net zero targets? How has the Foreign Secretary allowed this to happen, and does she think it is acceptable for her Government to be turning a blind eye to Chinese slave labour and these awful human rights abuses?

[Yvette Cooper]

I can be clear that this Government maintain high standards across our supply chains and are strengthening action against abuse within supply chains. While in China earlier this month, I raised issues around human rights and security. China is our third biggest trading partner and a permanent member of the Security Council. That is why we also discussed with it global security, and I think that the right hon. Lady should agree that it would be wrong to simply refuse to talk to China.

[Priti Patel]

The Foreign Secretary will know that a secret camera was found in an office block where the plans for the Chinese spy hub super-embassy were approved. No one knows yet where the camera came from, but it raises serious questions for the Government about their approval of this Chinese spy embassy. Can she say whether this act of foreign espionage will be investigated, and does this incident not once again highlight why China must be placed on the enhanced tier of the foreign influence registration scheme?

[Yvette Cooper]

The shadow Foreign Secretary and I are both former Home Secretaries who take any security threats immensely seriously. That is why the Government are strengthening the legislation on state-backed threats—because we take security issues so seriously. As she will know, the UK has plans for new embassy facilities in Beijing, because it is important that we have international standard and secure facilities in order to be able to engage, including on security. That is why we have to talk to the biggest countries in the world.

Middle East

Priti Patel Excerpts

Tuesday 9th June 2026 Commons Chamber

[Priti Patel (Witham) (Con)]

Iran is the world’s leading state sponsor of terrorism. It is now over 100 days since this conflict began, yet Iran continues to pose the most dangerous and significant threat to the middle east, peace and security and the interests of Britain and our allies and friends in the region. In recent days, we have seen the most appalling Iranian attack in Kuwait, causing injury and death at Kuwait International airport, and we have seen Iran launch missiles towards Israel. It continues to obstruct the movement of goods through the strait of Hormuz, seeking to hold us all to economic ransom; it refuses to end its nuclear weapons programme; it carries on oppressing its citizens, having butchered thousands already this year; and it continues to sponsor and support terrorist proxies throughout the region, causing bloodshed from Lebanon to Yemen and Gaza. It has shown no interest at all in pursuing peace, and it laughs in the face of sanctions.

No one in this House should have any shred of sympathy for the Iranian regime, which has caused so much terror and has blood on its hands. Iran has been the root cause of immense suffering in the middle east for far too long, in places where it has no business whatsoever—as the President of Lebanon has said in recent days, Lebanon is not Iran’s country. Can the Foreign Secretary confirm whether British assets in the region were involved in any interception efforts over the weekend, and what does this latest attack mean for our defence posture in the region?

It is all very well for the Government to call on Iran to exercise restraint, but that has never stopped it from carrying out its hostile attacks, which keep on increasing. Will there be any material consequences for Iran from Britain, such as a new wave of sanctions to further ratchet up the pressure? We on the Conservative Benches have been calling for new sanctions to prevent senior figures in the despotic Iranian regime parking their wealth in London, and to ensure that Britain cannot be a sanctuary for the forces of repression if those linked to the regime seek to flee Iran. Will the Foreign Secretary commit to taking both those actions?

As I said in the House last week, Iran’s terrorist proxy Hezbollah must be disarmed. It has caused immense suffering in Lebanon and Israel. We need to see UN Security Council resolution 1701 implemented in full, and Hezbollah must comply. When I raised that in the House last week, the Minister for the Middle East, the hon. Member for Lincoln (Mr Falconer), said in response that

“it must be the Lebanese Government who disarm Hezbollah.”—[Official Report, 3 June 2026; Vol. 786, c. 1189.]

He is absolutely right, but he did not say what support Britain is giving to the Lebanese Government now, because we all know that they cannot do it on their own. Are the Government going beyond the traditional support that Britain has offered the Lebanese armed forces—for example by offering technical and intelligence assistance? The Foreign Secretary said nothing in her statement on disarming Hezbollah, so can she tell the House what the Government are doing?

More broadly, we hope that the ceasefires in the region can lead to a sustainable end to the conflict without a resumption of fighting, but we all know that the situation remains incredibly precarious. Specifically on the Iran ceasefire, can the Foreign Secretary update the House on what involvement, if any, the Government are having behind the scenes in mediation efforts? Has she personally seen the outline of the apparently “close” peace deal or had any input into it? Has she discussed it at all with Secretary Rubio?

The Foreign Secretary has today announced a package of measures on the west bank, Gaza and the 20-point peace plan. We all want to see an end to violence and conflict in the west bank and in Gaza. In particular, she has made important points on aid and the fact that humanitarian aid and support are not getting through. What critical discussions have the Government been having with the parties involved to see progress in this area? Can she tell the House what the changing guidance on trade will mean in practice? What are the practical effects of the sanctions announced today?

The Foreign Secretary has mentioned asking the Charity Commission to investigate certain charities. What evidence has prompted that particular request? Will she be asking the Charity Commission to investigate charities in the UK that are supporting Iran and terrorism? Is the £10 million for the Palestinian Authority new money or is it from existing resources that are already allocated? Can she update the House on the steps being taken to reform the PA and stop the pay-to-slay mechanisms?

Iran is not alone; it is backed by the authoritarian axis that we all speak about too much in this House. The Foreign Secretary has just been to one of those states—China—in a desperate attempt to get economic crumbs to bail out Labour from its disastrous handling of the economy. The House is fully aware of China’s role in supporting Iran, including by providing offensive capabilities. The FCDO press release following the Foreign Secretary’s visit states that she

“stressed the urgency of reopening the Strait of Hormuz without tolls or charges, preventing nuclear proliferation in Iran and maintaining stability in the wider Middle East.”

Did China’s Foreign Minister show any willingness to put pressure on Iran to reopen the strait and to stop the illegal and reckless attacks that we are seeing? Did the Foreign Secretary raise concerns over China’s enabling of Iran’s offensive attacks?

There was no mention in the Foreign Secretary’s statement or the press release from the Foreign Office of Jimmy Lai, which raises significant questions for his family. Did she call for his immediate release and for an end to his politically motivated show trial? Did she threaten consequences if that did not happen?

Finally, and without wanting to segue on to something too far away from the middle east, the Foreign Office also claims that the Foreign Secretary urged China “to end economic support” for Russia’s illegal invasion of Ukraine, but will any undertakings be forthcoming? China is a critical enabler of Putin’s war, and we cannot simply turn a blind eye to that.

[Yvette Cooper]

Let me begin with the points that the shadow Foreign Secretary raised on Iran. We agree, I think, on the dangers and risks from Iran. We have seen the threats and the unprovoked strikes against the Gulf and against our Gulf partners, as well as attacks on civilian infrastructure and energy infrastructure and the operations and attacks through proxies across the region and more widely, including the attacks on Israel. That is why we have extensive sanctions against Iran, and why we have always been clear that under no circumstances must Iran be allowed to get or develop nuclear weapons. The UK, along with France and Germany, led the approach to the snapback restoration of sanctions against Iran in the autumn at the United Nations. We have also, because we recognise some of the threats from not just Iran but other state-backed organisations—including threats here in the UK—been working intensively, led by the Home Office, to draw up state threats legislation that we hope will pass swiftly through the House.

The shadow Foreign Secretary asked about the business advice. There can be no doubt that it is not just about the construction of the E1 settlements—we must discourage any settlement and any involvement of businesses in the construction, as several world leaders have said—but goes more widely. In the business advice, we are clear that we are against any economic or financial activity in those illegal settlements, because they undermine the prospects for peace and security for Israel and Palestine alike.

The shadow Foreign Secretary returned to the potential for an agreement about the strait. We desperately want to see an agreement. We are keeping in close touch with all those involved, including the mediators. I have had many discussions with Secretary of State Rubio. We are not direct participants in the negotiations—that is directly for the US and Iran and the mediators—but we are doing anything we can do to support that process and to pursue a settlement that ensures not simply a partial opening of the strait, but the full recognition of the principle of freedom of navigation and the underpinning of international law. As a maritime trading nation, we should always champion that principle. I have raised that issue directly in China and in India, and I specifically discussed with them the importance of maintaining unconditional support for freedom of navigation. In those discussions, including in China, they have recognised the importance of having no tolls on the strait of Hormuz. I have urged them to put any pressure they can on Iran to comply and to come to an agreement.

The shadow Foreign Secretary asked about Jimmy Lai. Of course I raised Jimmy Lai. We want to see him released urgently, and we have made that position clear in this House, and I made that position clear again with the Chinese authorities. We will continue to do so. I will also be keeping in close touch with Jimmy Lai’s family, because we take the case so seriously.

The shadow Foreign Secretary asked about Russia and Ukraine. I have to be honest that we have a difference of view with China on this one. We have been clear about the importance of our total solidarity with Ukraine and its people, because ultimately, Russia’s threat to Ukraine’s security is also a threat to Europe’s security and the UK’s security. I have made those points clear to the Chinese Government. As part of my visit, I also raised those issues directly with the Indian Government, who also take a different view from the UK on this crucial issue of Russia and Ukraine. We will continue to make those points.

It is important, as part of our security, that we engage with some of the biggest countries around the world on those global security issues. It is not simply about economic or trading relationships; it is about our security. Our security is strengthened if we engage with, for example, China on these issues, whether on the strait or on issues to do with Russia and Ukraine. We will raise those differences and disagreements not only because it is in line with our principles and in line with our commitment to international law, but because it is in the interests of our security and keeping people safe at home.

Russian Attacks on Civilian Infrastructure

Priti Patel Excerpts

Thursday 4th June 2026 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Foreign Secretary.

[Priti Patel (Witham) (Con)]

This has been a sobering and devastating week in Ukraine. Britain must continue to stand with Ukraine in its fight for freedom and sovereignty and back it against the evil and heinous acts we have seen, which are constantly committed by Putin.

The latest barbaric acts from Putin and Russia have led them to brutally target civilian infrastructure in Ukraine. The world has once again witnessed his cold-blooded actions: we have all seen bodies of civilians being pulled from rubble and the deaths of young people and children. We have seen all that in the news this week. We have also witnessed his war machine hitting targets in Romania, one of our NATO allies. Putin’s barbaric war of aggression continues. He has demonstrated his complete and utter lack of interest in de-escalation or pursuing a peaceful resolution.

The Conservative party in government has a proud record of supporting Ukraine in its fight against Putin. When this Government get it right, we will support them, but the recent shameful actions to loosen sanctions on Russian oil and gas are not acceptable to us. Will the Government take action in the light of the continued threat from Putin? Would they not rather drill in the North sea than loosen sanctions on Russian oil and gas?

We see that the Russian ambassador has been summoned by the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, but how are the Government responding to Russia’s drone attack on Romania? That is a dangerous escalation. What support is being given directly to Romania and other NATO allies in the region to protect them? What action are the Government taking to tackle the Russian shadow fleet as it continues to slip through our waters?

What work is the Foreign Secretary doing with the Ministry of Defence to ensure that both the RAF and the Royal Navy are equipped and prepared to deal with Russian proxies passing through our waters? When is the coalition of the willing next due to meet? What actions are being taken to further target Putin’s ability to wage war? What proposals are coming forward to bring an end to this conflict? The UK must continue to show resolve and use every tool at its disposal to back Ukraine and our allies and defend our freedoms and values from Putin’s acts and assaults.

[Seema Malhotra]

I thank the shadow Foreign Secretary for her comments. She will know how important it is that we maintain support across the House for our action in supporting Ukraine and putting pressure on Russia. That sends an important message to Putin from the whole of Parliament that we stand in solidarity with Ukraine.

It is important to recognise the work we are doing on sanctions. I disagree with the right hon. Lady’s characterisation of what we have done; I outlined how we have actually strengthened sanctions. In addition, on 26 May the UK sanctioned cryptocurrency exchanges operating in Russia along with entities and individuals suspected of links to the UK-sanctioned A7 network. It is important to recognise that we must continue to keep all our sanctions under review and strengthen them where we can.

The right hon. Lady’s contribution emphasises the need to commit to achieving an unconditional ceasefire. The attacks on Ukraine and the drone attack on Romania are unacceptable, but it is important to say that it is Russia that is stalling and backtracking. Putin has continued to repeat ultra-maximalist demands that would end Ukraine’s existence as a sovereign independent state, while dragging out talks and escalating his aggression against Ukraine. We, however, will continue to work with international partners, as we do every week, to ensure that Ukraine gets the military and financial support it needs to defend itself and to ramp up the economic pressure on Russia in order to force Putin to de-escalate the war and engage in meaningful talks.

Lebanon: Israel Defence Forces Operations

Priti Patel Excerpts

Wednesday 3rd June 2026 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call the shadow Foreign Secretary.

[Priti Patel (Witham) (Con)]

Lebanese Hezbollah is an Iranian-backed terrorist organisation that, for too long, has caused harm to the Lebanese people, undermined the Government of Lebanon and threatened Israel. It is also part of a terror network that threatens our interests and security, and those of our friends in the middle east. The House should be in no doubt that Hezbollah continues to undermine efforts to secure peace in the region, and fails to comply with the terms of the 2024 Israel-Lebanon ceasefire. What is the Minister’s assessment of Hezbollah’s actions when it comes to violating the ceasefire, and of the support that it has received from Iran? Does he agree that the interests of peace are best served by Hezbollah being permanently disarmed?

The current conflict has caused terrible hardship in Lebanon and Israel, and the UK Government must use their influence and diplomacy in the region to help bring this to an end. We must see this conflict come to an end. Can the Minister tell us what direct discussions have taken place with representatives in Israel, Lebanon and the US Administration on the terms of a lasting ceasefire? What are the British Government doing to support the disarming of Hezbollah? What contributions and practical efforts are being made to fully implement the UN Security Council resolution 1701?

Much of this leads back to the architect of so much disturbance in the middle east—Iran—so I will conclude my remarks by joining the Minister in condemning the strikes that took place today in Kuwait. Iran cannot carry on persisting in the way it is as a state sponsor of terrorism.

[Mr Falconer]

The shadow Foreign Secretary makes a range of important points, including on the enormous and continued harm that Hezbollah does to the people of Lebanon, as indeed it continues to attempt to do to the people of Israel. It is completely unacceptable that communities in the north of Israel continue to face barrages of missiles and drones. We have called repeatedly for Hezbollah to stop; what it does harms Lebanon as much as Israel.

We have discussed in detail, with the Lebanese armed forces and the leadership of Lebanon, the progress that must be made in disarming Hezbollah. There has been a lot of commentary about the phasing and sequencing of those efforts over the last few months, but it must be the Lebanese Government who disarm Hezbollah. That is the only way that the Hezbollah issue can be properly dealt with. The Government of Lebanon are brave and courageous people in whom we have very considerable confidence. President Aoun, who I was in contact with today, is taking very important steps to try to safeguard his country and its future, and we must support him. He, his Government and his armed forces must monopolise force in Lebanon, not Hezbollah and not the IDF.

Middle East

Priti Patel Excerpts

Thursday 21st May 2026 Commons Chamber

[Priti Patel (Witham) (Con)]

The conflict and crisis in the middle east continues to be felt in Britain and overseas. The Government must use all their diplomatic leverage and economic might to pursue a path of peace and stability in the region that protects the interests of Britain, our allies and our partners.

In response to the Minister’s remarks about the situation in Israel, we expect full diplomatic and consular access to be made available to British nationals. The Minister knows that progressing the peace plan in Gaza requires productive engagement from the British Government, not just talk. The Government have no role in the board of peace, so what are the Government doing to bring to the table support for the reconstruction for civilians, the removal of Hamas’s terrorist infrastructure that we know about, and the removal of Hamas from power? Can the Minister tell the House when he or the Foreign Secretary last engaged with the leadership team of the Coordinator of Government Activities in the Territories and the Civil-Military Coordination Centre on aid entering Gaza for those innocent civilians? Can he confirm to the House the quantum of aid that is going to Gaza through these routes? He himself has said that the situation is desperate and we all need to see more aid going through. He must recognise that having a functioning relationship with the Government of Israel is key to advancing those important humanitarian and peace priorities.

Will the Minister tell the House what action he is taking to support the disarmament of Hezbollah, the terrorist proxy of the Iranian regime? He touched on the situation between Israel and Lebanon. That can only be sustained with the right outcomes when the threats posed by Hezbollah are dealt with. What is his assessment of the situation between Israel and Lebanon?

On Iran, we all want the ceasefire to lead to the right outcome when it comes to ending the conflict and the regional issue we are all faced with. It is vital that the war ends in such a way that works for the British national interest, but also for the western interest and that of our security allies and friends in the middle east who are on the frontline day in, day out, including the UAE which has come under fire again in recent weeks and days. What involvement have the Government had in any discussions and negotiations? Does the Minister agree that the despotic, murderous Iranian regime must de-escalate and act in a constructive way going forward?

On the Conservative Benches, we do not have intelligence on Iran’s exact nuclear programme, its capabilities or what it is doing internally in its own country, but clearly whatever remains of the existing programme must be dismantled. The enriched uranium it currently has must be removed and lessons must be learnt from where Iran exploited the 2015 agreement. Can the Minister confirm that that is the Government’s position? Clarity from the Government on that totemic issue is really important. What is the Government’s position on Iran’s ballistic and military capability?

The Government have talked a great deal about their position on the strait of Hormuz, yet we have not seen any change in the situation, or, to this day, practical measures from the United Kingdom. The strait of Hormuz cannot be treated as a bargaining tool and no country or company should be forced to line the coffers of the despicable regime in Tehran. No country should have the power to shut down a global artery of international commerce and trade. Are the British Government actually putting any pressure at all on Iran to restore freedom of navigation? At the very least, surely, there should be new sanctions to tighten the screws on this appalling regime and a total ban on regime officials who might want to flee to the UK, as well as a concerted effort to go after the regime elites who might attempt to park their wealth in London? We know about their assets and I have raised these points previously with the Minister. Given the sickening recruitment call from the Iranian embassy in recent weeks, why have the Government only summoned the ambassador for a slap on the wrist? Surely the Home Office must now intervene on the proscription of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps?

On the long overdue UK-Gulf Cooperation Council free trade agreement, which we welcome, the Minister will know that those negotiations had been under way for many, many years and that it is an important Brexit opportunity. That could be at risk with his ministerial colleagues and the Labour leadership candidates planning to take us back into the EU all over again.

Finally, the Conservatives stand firmly in support of British interests across the middle east, which must be safeguarded. We must use our important influence in the region to effectively protect Britain, but also our allies, from those who want to continue to cause harm to the United Kingdom and to our friends and allies in the middle east.

[Mr Falconer]

I am grateful to the shadow Foreign Secretary for the constructive tone of her questions. Let me turn to the important question of consular access, which she raised at the outset. To be clear to the House, and to all right hon. and hon. Members who have constituents involved, we are seeking from the Israeli authorities both consular access to our nationals, as they would expect, and assurances about their good treatment. We understand that British nationals are expected to be deported back to the UK imminently. We are obviously following that up rapidly. If colleagues across the House have concerns, they are very welcome to raise them with me. We are, of course, as I said in the statement, in direct contact with those families who have approached the Foreign Office directly.

I can reassure the shadow Foreign Secretary that we are heavily engaged in the efforts she describes in relation to Gaza, both on reconstruction and on ensuring that adequate aid gets into Gaza. As I was clear in the statement, the amount of aid getting in remains inadequate and the restrictions remain contrary to the 20-point plan. We are pushing those points with Israeli authorities, as she would expect, and with all those with an interest in Gaza. That includes COGAT and CMCC, which she mentioned, and some of the new institutions formed under the Board of Peace—I saw High Representative Mladenov in Brussels and am in regular contact with him. It also includes the important discussions about the disarmament of Hamas. Similarly, we remain in regular discussions about the importance of demonstrating real progress in Lebanon on the disarmament of Lebanese Hezbollah. I discussed that with the Lebanese Foreign Minister just this week.

I am happy to say more about the sanctions that we have put in place already. I came to this House to announce some sanctions in October 2025. Those were precisely targeted on senior regime assets in the UK, which included significant restrictions on property ownership, which the right hon. Lady is aware of, up to a total value of £140 million. Given the serious nature of the topic, I will resist entering into discussion about Brexit. Whether or not the GCC FTA is long overdue, it was a negotiation started by Members now on the Opposition Benches, and it is a great pleasure for us to conclude it from the Government Benches.

Oral Answers to Questions

Priti Patel Excerpts

Tuesday 21st April 2026 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Foreign Secretary.

[Priti Patel (Witham) (Con)]

The barbaric regime in Tehran has murdered tens of thousands of its own people. It remains the world’s foremost state sponsor of terrorism and is responsible for appalling antisemitism, and for spying on the British Jewish community. Why did the Government not stop Iran from being appointed to prominent positions in the United Nations Economic and Social Council, as the United States did? If Iran is found to be behind the disgusting attacks on Jewish sites in recent weeks in London, will the Government move forward with the proscription of the IRGC, and act against any financial institutions in the UK that are involved in funding state-sponsored terrorist activity in the UK?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Foreign Secretary.

[Priti Patel (Witham) (Con)]

This morning, we heard Sir Olly Robbins say that there was a “dismissive attitude” and an atmosphere of pressure from No. 10 towards security vetting due to its desire to get Mandelson in post as soon as possible. Given Sir Olly’s account, why did the Foreign Secretary lose confidence in him last week? Surely the Prime Minister passed the buck for his own failures and appalling judgment.

[Yvette Cooper]

The starting point was the appointment of Peter Mandelson; he should never have been appointed to his post. The Prime Minister made that clear, and has apologised not just to the House but, more importantly, to the victims of Epstein, which is where that apology should lie. The right hon. Lady will know that Ministers have a responsibility to provide accurate information to the House and to ensure that we get that information from officials. Ministers, including the former Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister, should have been told about the UK Security Vetting conclusions and recommendation, which I think was relevant information that should have been provided to the House in September.

[Priti Patel]

Like the Prime Minister, the Foreign Secretary will be aware that Peter Mandelson was on the board of Sistema alongside Russian spies. Has she now checked whether the concerns raised during vetting related to Mandelson’s business links with enemies of the United Kingdom, including Russia and China? Has she asked for the details of the mitigations Sir Olly mentioned this morning and whether they were put in place around Mandelson? Does she know what kompromat our enemies have on him, and is she reviewing all his activities as ambassador for any compromise of UK national security?

[Yvette Cooper]

I have been informed of the conclusions of the UK Security Vetting report and assessment and its recommendation; I have not seen the detailed content of its report. I do think there is a distinction between the individual personal information that is provided and the conclusion and recommendations UKSV provides. The right hon. Lady will know that the Prime Minister has instigated a full investigation by Sir Adrian Fulford into this entire process and what was known, as well as the whole vetting process. Information is also being provided to the Intelligence and Security Committee.

Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill

Priti Patel Excerpts

Monday 13th April 2026 Commons Chamber

[Priti Patel (Witham) (Con)]

Let me start my remarks by saying that the Minister has done the right thing by coming to the House to give this statement, rather than being dragged here through an urgent question, and by stating the factual and accurate position that the treaty will not go forward. However, once again he has been left carrying the can for the Prime Minister’s epic failure of statecraft. Labour’s Chagos surrender has been wrong from the start, and instead of making excuses, the right thing to do would have been to tear up this dreadful treaty and commit to keeping Chagos British. The news that the ratification of the treaty is now done and dusted is a humiliation for the Prime Minister and this Government.

Let us be clear: the surrender treaty is Labour’s mess. As the House knows, within days of coming to office, the Prime Minister’s top foreign policy priority was to exceed the wishes of his left-wing lawyer friends and surrender the Chagos islands, at an enormous cost to British taxpayers. He met the Mauritian Prime Minister, appointed Jonathan Powell to conclude the negotiations, and rushed and blundered into the treaty. The Government inexplicably announced it to the world just before Mauritius went into an election. When the Mauritian Government with whom they agreed the deal got kicked out, the new Mauritian Government—guess what?—demanded more concessions from Britain, and Labour rolled over and got eaten for breakfast. The Government put one of our most important defence and security assets at risk. They compromised the special relationship with the United States, they ignored and betrayed the wishes of the Chagossian community, and they were prepared to hand over £35 billion of taxpayers’ money to lease back a land that we own. Then they went ahead with the deal before receiving the critical exchange of notes from the United States.

Having been to the United States recently, I am not in the least surprised that the Administration have sought to stop the deal, because they can see what we have been saying for a long time. It is the Conservatives who have opposed this Labour deal at every turn. While Labour has spectacularly failed to defend British sovereignty and Reform has gone from suggesting that we sell the Chagos islands to the US to suggesting that we give them to the Maldives, the Conservative party has been effectively scrutinising and opposing this surrender at every step of the way, to make sure that we keep Chagos British and that we protect our sovereignty and our taxpayers.

It is the Conservatives who have exposed the full £35 billion cost of the deal. It is the Conservatives who have dismantled Labour’s outrageous and offensive narrative that those who oppose the Chagos surrender are siding with Britain’s adversaries. It is the Conservatives who have brought to the fore the major security concerns about this deal and exposed the fact that Mauritius is deepening its partnerships with Russia, China and Iran. It is the Conservatives who have been pressing the Government for months on their totally inadequate answers about why the anti-nuclear Pelindaba treaty would apply to Diego Garcia. And it is the Conservatives who have supported the Chagossians at every step of the way, given them a voice and spoken up for them.

Our questions and debates in this House and the other place have held Labour to account and forced the Government into the position set out today. Although the surrender and the whole process have now been ripped up, I want to ask the Minister some fundamental questions. The Mauritian Government have announced that a UK delegation is going to Mauritius later this month. Will the Minister tell us who is going, and what is the purpose? What will they be negotiating? Is there a new timetable? What is actually going to happen?

We also know that Mauritius has budgeted to receive the surrender payments from the British Government, so can the Minister confirm that no payments will be made to Mauritius as a result of what he has announced today? Will the Labour Government commit to spending the money that they were planning to ship to Mauritius on boosting defence spending at this critical time, which is exactly what the British taxpayer wants? It should now be clearly allocated for the purpose of this fundamental resource.

Can the Minister confirm in no uncertain terms that as long as the US opposes this deal, Labour will not seek in any way to reinstate it? On the Chagossians, if the islands stay British, is it the Government’s intention to look at resettlement options? Will the Minister rule out any new legislation in the next Session, even if it is not in the King’s Speech, so that the surrender treaty cannot become operable? The only Bill that the Government should take forward in the next Session is my original Bill to make sure that Chagos remains British.

[Stephen Doughty]

I will start by thanking the right hon. Lady, who has rightly scrutinised many different aspects of this matter over many months. I have come dutifully to answer many questions, I have met with her privately, and the subject has been scrutinised by many Committees. It was right to update the House today on these developments, and I am glad that she acknowledges that point.

Of course, it is not for the Government simply to choose easy paths. It is for the Government to choose the right path: the path that is in the interests of Britain and our national security, and that of our allies. At the heart of this is a fundamental question. The Opposition know that there is a huge challenge. They knew that there was a problem, which is why they started the process. Throughout all the exchanges we have had, they have never been able to answer that simple question.

I cannot recall a time when we have seen so much misinformation and, quite frankly, negligent disregard for the national interests and security of the British people. It is regrettable that the official Opposition and indeed the Reform party—I see that only one of its Members has turned up today—have been at the heart of this. Of course, they will say that this is just politics and that the Government should be thick-skinned, but quite frankly the British public deserve better.

The national interest is what drives this Government and our national security, as the Conservatives well knew, which is why they started the process. We have seen frankly ludicrous disinformation about the operations of the base, about the genuine threats that it faced, and about the security provisions in the treaty, which of course we strengthened. We also seen it about the costs: no matter how often they give false figures, that does not make them any more accurate. We have also seen it about the views of Chagossians—I accept that they are wide and varied but, conveniently, the Opposition always ignore the views of the significant numbers of Chagossian communities and groups who feel very differently about the treaty and have supported it since the start. Indeed, we have seen it about the protection of the environment.

The Opposition operate in a state of convenient amnesia, but they know the reality, they knew the jeopardy facing the base and they know that they presided over 11 rounds of negotiations. They published it in ministerial statements and in records of meetings with the Mauritian Prime Minister. They know, too, that the treaty signed by this Government was born of their policy choices and their negotiation mandates. As ever, the Opposition cannot run away fast enough from their record in government when it suits their tiresome politicking. The British people are not fooled. They can see the hypocrisy, and they deserve better.