Priti Patel MP: speeches 2026

Speeches

• 4 Mar 2026 · Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office · Hansard source

  More

  We have had a wide-ranging debate. I will not touch on all the areas mentioned, but I will add a few others. While the debate focuses on budgets and all the other issues around the FCDO’s work, its people and the reforms, it is overshadowed by ongoing events in the middle east. With British nationals in the region sheltering, fearful for their safety while Iran is indiscriminately firing missiles and drones, perhaps this is an opportunity for the Minister to say a few words about the steps being taken to support British nationals in the region. As we know, our bases are being fired on by the Iranians, and British nationals are in fear for their lives. I know that everyone in the FCDO is working hard to protect Britain’s interests in the region and the safety and security of our bases against the Iranian threat. In the light of the fact that our nationals and bases are under threat, when will the Foreign Secretary call in the Iranian terrorist regime’s spokesperson in London? Frankly, this is a very difficult and worrying time. As the debate covers FCDO resources, the Prime Minister said on Sunday that our allies in the Gulf had asked the British Government to do more to defend them. Is that happening now to the extent that it genuinely can? Is there an issue with resources and deployments? Perhaps the Minister might be able to update the House on whether the Government have taking any action at all to support and protect international shipping, particularly during this difficult time when we have significant defence expertise in the region. We all pay a big tribute to our armed forces, who are doing so much for our service personnel and their families in the region. At times like these, the expertise of officials and diplomats is essential, and we pay tribute to and thank them. We know that the FCDO has undertaken a programme of efficiency savings—that has been touched on—and that there is some upheaval in the Department. The Conservative party is supportive of the principle of finding efficiencies and streamlining in government—there is no question of that—but it is important that that is done in the right way and that we do not lose expertise and capabilities. We cannot lose them in the diplomatic service—I use that phrase deliberately—because they are a vital asset to our country and to our national interests. We have invested in their training, skills and capability, and they are literally on the frontline around the world battling for our national interests. I would welcome the Minister giving an update on the impacts of some of the upcoming changes. One area where the FCDO has been spending money, and on which Opposition Members, including me, have been asking questions—written questions and letters to the Department—is with regards to the disgraced former ambassador to the United States, Peter Mandelson, and his payouts and expenses. I have received some non-answers to written parliamentary questions. In the light of the investigations taking place, I appreciate that some of what my questions asked about may be sensitive, but hard-pressed taxpayers deserve the right to know the financial cost of the Prime Minister’s terrible judgment in making that appointment. There is not only that appalling financial cost, but the impact on our incredible team in Washington. Given the outstanding team in our mission there, working so hard with regards to our special relationship, to appoint the Prime Minister’s crony to that role is unforgivable. One of the biggest costs to British taxpayers could be the result of another foreign policy failure: Labour’s Chagos surrender deal. The Prime Minister told a press conference last year that the costs were just £3.4 billion, claiming that was “how the OBR counts the cost”. However, the Office for Budget Responsibility confirmed in a letter to me that it “does not hold any information on the costs or financial impacts of the specific treaty over the future sovereignty of the Chagos Archipelago” and that it has not “undertaken any modelling of these costs.” We should not be surprised by that misinformation. The Prime Minister has said a lot about the deal—he also stated that China, Russia and Iran oppose the deal, when in fact they back Mauritius—but the fact is that the Opposition had to drag out the information about the forecast costs, which will be £35 billion. That is taxpayers’ money, so Ministers should provide full clarity. If the Minister cannot do that today, the House is owed a written explanation in the light of what the OBR said. We want Ministers to be transparent—it is public money, at the end of the day—including under which budget lines in the FCDO budget the costs of the Chagos surrender will come. The Attorney General of Mauritius is complaining that Mauritius has not yet received any of the money it was expecting from the British Government—some 10 billion Mauritian rupees, or 4% of its revenues. Clearly this money has to be accounted for from the FCDO’s or the Government’s budgets, so can the Minister tell us what further sums of money are being paid to Mauritius under the strategic partnership signed alongside the treaty last year, and other schemes? The Mauritian Government are also expecting a further 86 million Mauritian rupees in support from the UK Government in their current financial year. That is in their country’s budget, so can the Minister disclose when this is being accounted for? British taxpayers deserve to know what is happening to this money. Can the Minister also give details of what the £135,000 of funding referenced on page 99 of the supplementary estimates is for? It is in section K. I do not need to go into the full details; I am sure the Minister’s officials will get that information for him. Of course, one way to deal with all of this, and to save British taxpayers a lot of money, is to tear up this terrible surrender treaty. That money could go to many of the areas that hon. Friends and colleagues have discussed this afternoon. Could the Minister also provide some clarity as to when the Bill is coming back? I noticed that the Minister for the Middle East got himself into a bit of difficulty last week, and I think clarity would be welcome. The whole House should also be concerned about the actions of the Chinese Communist party. The FCDO plays a key role in this relationship. In the last few weeks the Prime Minister has visited China and the Foreign Secretary has met Wang Yi in Munich, yet there is very little to show for this relationship so far. We must bear in mind what the CCP is doing and the harm it is causing by jailing Jimmy Lai for 20 years, which is political persecution, by putting bounties of the heads of Hongkongers living in our country, and by spying on our own country and democratic institutions. We heard only moments ago the Security Minister’s statement that three people were arrested today under counter-terrorism legislation. I introduced the National Security Bill in Parliament back in 2022, and I think it is fair to say that every single Member in this House is deeply concerned about what is going on. This does not stand our country in good stead. It damages our reputation in the world. I am going to say it again: it is time that the FCDO and the Government played an important role by placing China on the enhanced tier of FIRS. We must be robust in defending our national interests. My hon. Friend the Member for Chester South and Eddisbury (Aphra Brandreth) spoke earlier about education and the Palestinian Authority. While the situation in Israel, Gaza and the west bank continues to cause a great deal of concern, the 20-point peace plan is now out there and in my view the UK needs to use its influence to support it. We need to see progress on the dismantling of Hamas, and we need to see aid getting to where it needs to get to. The FCDO plays an important role in that. We also need to see progress on reforming the Palestinian Authority, as has been pointed out today. When it comes to questions around education, we have heard some very robust comments today. The Minister for the Middle East referred to an audit taking place on “pay to slay” and reviews of the education curriculum, which is deeply worrying. We need assurances from the Government immediately that they are being robust around the £101 million of British taxpayers’ money that was given to the Palestinian Authority last year and that that money is not going into supporting those appalling practices. The one-year anniversary of the memorandum of understanding is coming up next month. There should be some transparency on this, and I welcome the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Chester South and Eddisbury. Many hon. Members have referenced aid, ODA and the budget this afternoon. It is right that the funding has been repurposed to support our defence and security, given the threats that we face. Our contributions make a difference, and it is vital that the Government continue to explain the projects they are prioritising, to make sure that the money is followed, tracked and traced and that all outcomes are working for our national interests. We must ensure that every single penny counts and that there is transparency and removal of waste in spending. There has not been enough discussion about the role of private sector finance and the multilateral development banks, about where the FCDO sits on that and about what is happening to our money in those institutions. That matter is absolutely vital, but there is very little scrutiny in this House. The Minister who holds this portfolio fully may be in the other House, but these issues should be scrutinised here. At the end of the day, this is public money. While there are many areas of conflict in the world, the UK continues to make a difference, and the whole House should recognise that. We have heard colleagues speak about the brutality of the war in Sudan—it is absolutely appalling, and much has been said in the House on that. In Afghanistan, basic human rights are being denied. Women’s basic freedoms are being suppressed, and those rights have to be restored. On Syria, perhaps the Minister could add something about where our resources are going with regard to the transitional Government and the Syrian Democratic Forces. What are we putting in, and what is happening on stability and bringing peace there? There is still a lack of accountability around the destruction of chemical weapons, the state’s ability to deal with ISIS, which we deal with in this country through the Ministry of Defence, and the strikes that are essential to reduce ISIS. On reports that Syria has been deploying troops on its border with Lebanon in recent days, does the Minister agree that Hezbollah must not be able to draw on arms smuggled across the border? On the Government’s decision to lift a wave of Syria sanctions, has any work been undertaken to measure the impact to ensure that bad actors are not facilitated and do not profit? All those issues affect us and the FCDO in many of its roles and responsibilities. I want to quickly make a couple of other points. We have all marked the fourth anniversary of Putin’s awful full-scale invasion of Ukraine. The House is united on Ukraine, but the Minister’s Department has an important role to play with the MOD in ensuring that resources get into Ukraine and that we support Ukraine. Also, when it comes to going after Russia and its financial flows—this is about both sanctions and the shadow fleet—we need to ensure that oil finances in particular are being tackled. Sanction busting must stop, and Britain has a role to play there. Finally, it is absolutely right that Britain stands tall in the world, and the FCDO is pivotal in that. Whether it is soft power or hard power or our diplomats around the world, how we project our country’s power and influence is vital to securing our interests both at home and abroad, and protecting British nationals overseas and keeping our country safe from threats is what the Foreign Office leads on and does well in. There is still much more to do, and I look forward to hearing the Minister’s responses to my questions.

• 3 Mar 2026 · Hong Kong: Human Rights Situation · Hansard source

  More

  Last month, the Foreign Secretary held an unpublicised meeting in Munich with Wang Yi, which we only know about because the Chinese Communist party boasted that the Foreign Secretary told the party that the Prime Minister’s visit to China was “a complete success with fruitful results” for UK-China relations. Can the Minister, on behalf of the Foreign Secretary, confirm whether or not the human rights of those living in Hong Kong were raised at the meeting? With Jimmy Lai languishing in prison, the CCP looking to toughen up the Hong Kong national security law, and Hongkongers living in Britain with bounties on their heads, on what basis was the Prime Minister’s visit a complete success? Given how little the UK got, it was a complete failure, wasn’t it?

• 3 Mar 2026 · Hong Kong: Human Rights Situation · Hansard source

  More

  Clearly, the Minister is desperate, and is having to go backwards, rather than moving forwards to address the situation. For her information, China oppresses Hongkongers, refuses to free Jimmy Lai and supports Russia and Iran in their barbaric actions to undermine freedom and democracy. Those are issues that the Government should take a grip of now. China plots, spies and undermines our security. Rather than kowtowing to China, when will her Government wake up, deal with the threat posed by the CCP, and put China on the enhanced tier of the foreign influence registration scheme? When will she start taking action and expel CCP diplomats, to show our disgust at their appalling actions when it comes to transnational repression?

• 3 Mar 2026 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  The Government’s indecision on how to deal with Iran has left the UK weaker and has undermined our own security, but, as the House has already started to discuss, proscribing the IRGC will strengthen our position. I proscribed Hamas when I was Home Secretary, so I have dealt with state proscriptions. Last year, in her role as Home Secretary, the Foreign Secretary spoke about bringing forward the Hall review and recommendations, and about introducing a series of powers. Let me make a suggestion. When will the Foreign Secretary and her Government provide the parliamentary time that is essential if we are to have emergency legislation to proscribe the IRGC? If she desperately needs parliamentary time that has not been timetabled so far, will she scrap the Chagos surrender Bill so we can legislate to do that now?

• 3 Mar 2026 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  Events in the middle east remind us how important to our collective defence and security the Diego Garcia base and the whole of the Chagos archipelago are, and nothing should be done to undermine that. Given the latest comments from the President of the United States on the importance of the base and on the folly of giving sovereignty away, will the Foreign Secretary finally do what is right for the defence of our country, British taxpayers and British Chagossians and tear up Labour’s terrible Chagos surrender treaty?

• 9 Feb 2026 · Jimmy Lai: Prison Sentence · Hansard source

  More

  I commend my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) for securing this important urgent question. Today Jimmy Lai, and the democracy and freedom that he has campaigned for in Hong Kong, has been sentenced to 20 years. As his son Sebastien has said, Jimmy “dedicated his life to defending the freedoms of Hong Kong. For that heroism, he’s being punished; he’s essentially getting a death sentence for that.” Jimmy is a hero and deserves to be back home with his family, not hauled in chains before the courts and languishing in a prison cell. We call for his release. The fact that Jimmy Lai has been sentenced to 20 years—the longest sentence ever under the national security law—is not only a reflection of the cruelty inflicted by the Chinese Communist party, but it is a monumental diplomatic failure of this feeble and gullible Prime Minister. Just over a week ago, he was with President Xi defending engagement with the CCP. He gave China permission for its super-embassy spy hub, but failed to secure Jimmy’s release. Will the Minister now have some backbone and tell us exactly what details were discussed between the Prime Minister and Xi? Did the Prime Minister call for Jimmy to come back home, or demand that he gets access to the healthcare he needs? The official readout of the meeting published on the Downing Street website did not even mention Jimmy Lai’s name. We need answers, Mr Speaker. Jimmy’s family, and the whole country, want to know when this weak and pathetic Labour Government will finally stand up to China and show some backbone. Will the Foreign Secretary actually do something, such as summon the Chinese ambassador and prepare a list of diplomats to expel in response to China’s refusal to free Jimmy Lai? Will the Government revoke the planning permission granted for the super-embassy spy hub, and will China now be placed on the enhanced tier of the foreign influence registration scheme at long last? With the UK holding the presidency of the UN Security Council, what diplomatic steps will be taken to escalate this case, put some pressure on China for once, and secure global support for Jimmy’s release? Jimmy must be freed now, and this is a day of shame for this weak Labour Government and their failure to stand up to China.

• 5 Feb 2026 · Sudan · Hansard source

  More

  The situation in Sudan is serious and deadly, and Members across the Chamber want this awful, barbaric war to end. Millions are suffering, displaced and malnourished, and an estimated 150,000 people have been killed, including in massacres such as El Fasher. War crimes are being committed, and appalling acts of sexual violence are being perpetrated against women and girls. UK leadership is needed to make a difference to the humanitarian situation on the ground, and to support every international diplomatic effort to end this awful and deadly conflict. I must ask the Foreign Secretary, however, how she can come to the House to talk about such barbaric sexual violence against women and girls, when the Prime Minister knowingly let his friend, Peter Mandelson, a friend of one of the world’s most notorious paedophiles, into the heart of Government and her Department. Is she not ashamed and concerned that our country’s credibility and record on this issue has been damaged because of the Government’s poor judgment, and the Prime Minister’s judgment in appointing Mandelson, knowing his links to Epstein? With Mandelson putting his interests first, has she assessed the damage that his actions have caused to the UK’s international and reputational interests, including our essential work to address the situation in Sudan? To her knowledge, did he at any stage mislead our US ally on national security and foreign affairs on key decisions such as Chagos, which impact our security partnership? This morning I am sure the Foreign Secretary will have seen reports that Secretary Rubio warned the Labour Government over the appointment of Lord Mandelson. Can she confirm whether she or her predecessor were aware of that? The UK’s credibility has been damaged by the Prime Minister and her Government’s appalling judgment. That is why answers are needed. This week, the UK assumed the presidency of the UN Security Council. Will the Foreign Secretary tell the House how we will use that position rightly to advance efforts to negotiate to end this conflict? US-led peace efforts are reportedly building momentum, with a text being prepared of a plan to try to stop the fighting. Has she seen and inputted into that text, and what are her views on it? Has she set parameters to decide whether the proposals are the right ones, and has she spoken to other Sudan Quad countries about it? If acceptable, what pressures will be put on the warring parties to agree it? What is her assessment of any progress made since the statement at last April’s Sudan conference in London, and who will participate in the conference in Germany? We welcome the new sanctions of the RSF and the SAF, but can we expect further action against the leaders of those barbaric groups, their key operators and enforcers, who were all responsible for administering vile brutality on innocent people in different parts of the country? We all back the sanctions announced in December, but we need stronger action with robust consequences that deter the entities, individuals and businesses whose support continues to sustain this awful war. Will the Foreign Secretary update the House on how the UK is using international courts to pursue those responsible for these atrocities being committed, and to gather evidence? We note the £20 million of humanitarian funding announced by the Government for women and girls, so will she confirm whether that is drawn from money already pledged, or whether it is additional new funding? Which organisations are providing the programmes funded by that money, and what are the mechanisms for how the support service will work? As well as supporting women and girls affected by sexual violence and the stigma attached to children born from rape, is the Foreign Secretary working to help male victims, where there is also stigma that prevents them coming forward? More broadly, can she update us on the volume of British aid that has managed to get over the border since the escalation of this awful conflict towards the end of last year? What information has she received about what aid is getting through, and whether it is getting into the right hands? The war in Sudan is a stain on the world’s conscience, and Britain must exert every ounce of its influence and leverage to get the warring parties to lay down their weapons immediately and to secure a lasting peace.

• 3 Feb 2026 · Iran · Hansard source

  More

  The brutal crackdown on brave Iranians fighting for their basic rights and freedoms continues. The reports are shocking. We have now seen that tens of thousands have been killed and hundreds of thousands injured. Some are even saying that 30,000 people have died. These are warlike casualty rates, yet the condemnation and response are weak. What are the British Government doing, with our allies, to neutralise the regime’s tools of repression? The Government have announced new sanctions—the Minister has spoken about that—but what is being done to crack down on the sanctions evasion that is fuelling the Iranian regime’s repression, including in oil sales and cryptocurrency usage? What steps are being taken to weaken the regime’s terrorist proxies? Are the Government tracking the regime’s illegal funding sources to ensure that UK financial systems and institutions are not facilitating or hosting funds that are being used to target Iranian citizens in Britain with hostile attacks? The EU has chosen to proscribe the IRGC. What is the Government’s response? The Jonathan Hall review concluded nearly nine months ago, so when will emergency and essential measures to take action against the IRGC come to Parliament? We cannot wait, and the Conservatives will support emergency legislation. The build-up of US naval and air force assets in the middle east has been well documented and reported, and it has prompted some reported contacts between the US and Iran. Will the Minister say what discussions have been held with the US Government about their intentions? Is the UK involved in any contacts between the US and Iran? What plans is the Minister making for British assets and the protection of personnel and British nationals in the region should the US decide to strike? Is there a scenario in which the UK might be involved in potential action? How will Ministers ensure that they are at the table, and what planning and co-operation are under way to assess any commercial disruption within the region should action materialise? This is not the time to be silent. Britain must stand up for the Iranian people and confront this vile, despotic regime with strength and resolve.

• 3 Feb 2026 · Iran · Hansard source

  More

  (Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for the Foreign, Development and Commonwealth Office if she will make a statement regarding the situation on Iran.

• 28 Jan 2026 · British Indian Ocean Territory · Hansard source

  More

  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—

• 28 Jan 2026 · British Indian Ocean Territory · Hansard source

  More

  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.

• 28 Jan 2026 · British Indian Ocean Territory · Hansard source

  More

  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.

• 28 Jan 2026 · British Indian Ocean Territory · Hansard source

  More

  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.

• 28 Jan 2026 · British Indian Ocean Territory · Hansard source

  More

  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.

• 28 Jan 2026 · British Indian Ocean Territory · Hansard source

  More

  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?

• 28 Jan 2026 · British Indian Ocean Territory · Hansard source

  More

  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.

• 28 Jan 2026 · British Indian Ocean Territory · Hansard source

  More

  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.

• 28 Jan 2026 · British Indian Ocean Territory · Hansard source

  More

  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.

• 26 Jan 2026 · Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill · Hansard source

  More

  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.

• 26 Jan 2026 · Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill · Hansard source

  More

  ( 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.

• 20 Jan 2026 · Chagos Islands: Marine Protection · Hansard source

  More

  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?

• 20 Jan 2026 · Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill · Hansard source

  More

  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.

• 20 Jan 2026 · Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill · Hansard source

  More

  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.

• 20 Jan 2026 · Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill · Hansard source

  More

  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.

• 20 Jan 2026 · Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill · Hansard source

  More

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