Priti Patel MP: speeches 2026

Speeches

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

  More

  If the Government wish to U-turn and scrap the Bill, we would welcome that and support it; there is no question about that. I turn to amendment 1. It is not just when it comes to money, which is addressed in amendment 5, that the Government’s claims lack any credibility; amendment 1, which deals with the surrender of British sovereignty, leaves us weaker and, as we have heard from my right hon. and hon. Friends, will compromise the long-term operations of the base. We are required to give notice to the Government of Mauritius about a range of activities taking place on the base. As the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) pointed out, Mauritius is a signatory to the Pelindaba treaty, and if that applies to Diego Garcia, it would prohibit the stationing and storage of nuclear weapons there. This is very serious. While the Prime Minister has claimed that China, Russia and Iran oppose the surrender, we know that they back it; they publicly endorse it, and they will seek to gain from this lack of sovereignty. These points are all relevant to amendment 1, as it requires the Government to renegotiate article 11 of the treaty, so that payments cease should the use of the base for military purposes became impossible. Obviously, we hope that that scenario does not materialise, as we believe that Diego Garcia is a vital cornerstone of our national security and defence, and should remain so. However, as the treaty stands, if we stop using the base, the UK is still bound to make pretty significant payments over the 99-year lease period; it is a huge cost. Amendment 1 is therefore a vital point of contingency. We would like the whole agreement binned, but we believe that it is reasonable and practical for the Government to accept this change. When he sums up, will the Minister explain why he is not prepared to consider the amendment, and to renegotiate parts of the treaty?

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

  More

  Labour’s Chagos surrender Bill is back, and this House has its last chance to act in the national interest, defend the rights of the Chagossian community and protect the money of hard-pressed British taxpayers, who are being expected to foot a colossal bill of £35 billion, which is being given to a foreign Government to—guess what?—cut their taxes, while our taxes rise. I put on record the thanks of Conservative Members to the other place for their scrutiny, and their diligence in once again holding this Government to account. When Labour plotted to deny this House a debate and a vote on the surrender treaty during the 21-day process under the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010, it was Conservatives in the House of Lords who forced a debate and a vote. When Labour limited the time for this House to give the Bill the line-by-line scrutiny it needed, it was the House of Lords that stepped in and made time available. When this Labour Government ignored and neglected the views of the Chagossian community, it was the House of Lords and the International Relations and Defence Committee that came to the rescue and organised a survey, giving important insights into Chagossians’ concerns about the Government of Mauritius and the future of their ancestral home. When Labour refused to accept any amendments to modify and improve this £35 billion surrender Bill, it was the House of Lords that made important changes, which we are debating today. Let me be clear: this is a Bill that the Conservatives have fought against at every single stage. We will not accept this deal to surrender British sovereignty; it is a deal that we will continue to oppose and challenge Ministers on. Every vote today is a vote to kill this Bill. We will keep on voting against this Bill and opposing it until the Government—and, one would hope, the Prime Minister—see sense, withdraw it and tear up the treaty. We are not the only ones vociferously opposing this, because we now know that the President of the United States is against it; he says that it is being done “for no reason whatsoever”, and that China and Russia will “have noticed this act of total weakness.”

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

  More

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

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

  More

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

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

  More

  Let me remind my right hon. Friend exactly what the President of the United States said. He has said that this is being done “for no reason whatsoever”, and that “There is no doubt that China and Russia have noticed this act of total weakness.” The previous Foreign Secretary, now the Deputy Prime Minister, is on the record as saying: “If President Trump doesn’t like the deal, the deal will not go forward… they’ve got to be happy with the deal or there is no deal”, so why has Labour continued to press this Bill? In the light of the President’s comments, can the Minister tell us what will happen to the status of the 1966 exchange of notes between the UK and the United States, which states clearly that the British Indian Ocean Territory “shall remain under United Kingdom sovereignty”? What is the impact on that agreement? Is it being changed?

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

  More

  Let me say, for the benefit of everyone in this House, that the United States of America is our strongest ally when it comes to the national security of our country, and rightly so. When the President of the United States raises concerns, we should listen to them, and I would like to think that this Government will act on them. Let me turn to the details of Lords amendment 5, which would introduce new provisions on transparency about the costs that British taxpayers are being forced to pay. It is vital that this House sees the full costs, as Labour has never acknowledged or accepted the financial costs and burdens of this Bill for the taxpayer. As the House knows, the Conservative party had to force the information out of the Government through freedom of information requests. Labour Ministers have had the bare-faced cheek to come here and give us their valuation of £3.5 billion, whereas the Government Actuary’s Department tells us that it is £35 billion. In most areas of Government spending, Labour likes to brag about how much is being spent—welfare is a familiar theme that it likes to go on about—but on this issue, it is using a valuation technique to downplay the amount. We have heard the Prime Minister claim that this is “how the OBR counts the cost”. However, the Office for Budget Responsibility has said: “The OBR does not hold any information on the costs or financial impacts of the specific treaty over the future sovereignty of the Chagos Archipelago. We can confirm that we have not been contacted by HM Treasury, MoD or the Governments Actuary’s Department”, so what is the truth? This amendment would help to bring about more openness and transparency on the costs.

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

  More

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

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

  More

  rose—

• 20 Jan 2026 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

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

• 20 Jan 2026 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

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

• 19 Jan 2026 · Iran: Protests · Hansard source

  More

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

• 19 Jan 2026 · Iran: Protests · Hansard source

  More

  Since last week’s statement, we have seen more information about the horrific brutality that the despotic regime in Tehran has inflicted and the bloodshed it is responsible for against its own citizens. Reports from medics in country say that the figure could be as high as 18,000 men, women and children dead, slaughtered in cold blood. Reports also suggest that up to 360,000 people could be injured, with those wounded left dying due to shortages of blood in hospitals. This is an affront to humanity, and there must be accountability, including for the use of execution show trials. The regime is one of the most consistently vile and brutal in the world. The UK Government cannot stand by, and we need to understand what more they are doing in response to the latest barbaric revelations and actions. What is the Government’s assessment of the numbers killed and injured and the brutal tactics used by the regime? What do they make of reports that the regime may have used chemical weapons in the recent attacks on its own civilians? What assessment has been undertaken of those imprisoned and being tortured? The principle victims of this vile regime are the Iranian people themselves. What did their ambassador say when he was summoned last week to the Foreign Office, and what did the Iranian Foreign Minister say when he was called by the Foreign Secretary? Once again, protesters in Iran seek freedom from tyranny, and the response from the west has been shameful as Iranians have been slaughtered. Iran continues to pose a threat to us all and to our interests with its sponsoring of terrorism and its nuclear programme. The US State Department remarked on Saturday that it had “heard reports that the Islamic Republic is preparing options to target American bases”. Given that Britain has many joint military bases with the US in the region, what is being done to secure those assets? What is the latest assessment of Iran’s nuclear enrichment programme and ballistic missile capability, and what is being done to strip Iran of those weapons? With phase two of the Gaza peace plan being implemented, what is being done to stop Iranian sponsorship of Hamas and other terrorist groups undermining efforts to secure peace in the region? This is not a time to be timid as the response to these continued atrocities continues to be shamefully muted.

• 19 Jan 2026 · Arctic Security · Hansard source

  More

  I begin by expressing our condolences to the people of Spain following the devasting train crash yesterday. The Conservative party is clear that the US Administration’s decision to announce tariffs on the UK over Greenland is completely wrong. People in the United Kingdom and the United States will face higher costs because of the proposed tariffs. The tariffs will be yet another burden for businesses across our country, and they go against the United States’ recent national security strategy, which says: “It is natural and just that all nations put their interests first and guard their sovereignty…We stand for the sovereign rights of nations”. We respect the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Greenland and Denmark. The future of Greenland must be for its people and Denmark—and for them alone—to decide. Denmark is a valued NATO ally and a leading contributor to Ukraine; indeed, it is one of the highest per capita donors. We have also worked with Denmark on Arctic security, and it is imperative that we and our European NATO allies now show a determination to go much further and back up our words with actions. The security challenges in the Arctic must be tackled head-on, particularly the threat of Russia. Greenland is of geopolitical significance to every NATO member state, including the United Kingdom. The best way to tackle threats is to work together in unison, as NATO allies, because America’s national security is indivisible from NATO’s—they are one and the same. That collective security is the basis of our national defence architecture. Collective action in the immediate term is how we should work together to address those challenges, so will the Foreign Secretary say what resources the Government will put in place to prioritise or repurpose their inventory to contribute to NATO’s High North missions? What are the Government doing to look at how, working with the US, we can build on existing joint defence agreements to broker a greater consensual military presence on Greenland from both sides of the Atlantic? What is the Government’s plan to help lead international efforts to secure the safety of Arctic shipping routes as they become more open, stave off exploitation of Greenland’s critical minerals by malign actors, protect the region’s fisheries, and boost digital connectivity and security, particularly at sea? Has the Foreign Secretary discussed this issue with Secretary Rubio and, if not, what will she propose when she speaks to him, including on the security issue in the High North? UK leadership matters at this challenging moment for NATO, and we should advance a push from all NATO allies to thwart Putin’s ambitions in the High North. It is incumbent on the United Kingdom to help to lead that charge, and our ability to convene outside the EU is a strength that we should put into play. The Conservatives have also called on the Prime Minister to push for an urgent NATO meeting that includes the United States especially. Will the Government pursue that, so that a position can be reconciled behind closed doors and we can present a united front to our adversaries? It is important for our economy and for businesses that the Government secure a reversal of the position on tariffs. This is not a moment for megaphone diplomacy, but can the Foreign Secretary share the Government’s strategy for bringing the US round to revoking those tariffs before their kick-in date? Can she also confirm the UK’s position on countermeasures? Under the tariff deal agreed in the spring, the UK secured a reduced 10% tariff for 100,000 vehicles. Does the Foreign Secretary expect the 10% Greenland tariff to be added to that existing 10% tariff, effectively doubling the tax on British car exports to 20% from 1 February? Pharmaceuticals were also a cornerstone of the agreement on tariff-free exemptions. Does the Foreign Secretary expect life sciences to be protected from the new baseline tariff, or will the 100% tariff threatened in late 2025 now be accelerated? What specific support will her colleagues in the Department for Business and Trade provide for small and medium-sized business exporters, which could face an overnight increase of 10% in the costs for their largest export market? What assessment have the Government made of the potential economic impact of tariffs, and what can be done to mitigate that? This is a time for cool but determined heads, because the stakes are significant and enormous for our country. This is not just a big geopolitical moment; it is a moment of real concern for businesses and exporters in our country. We are counting on British diplomacy to reverse the tariff situation and bring a swift end to the debacle over Greenland. The US is our closest ally: the way that our security agencies operate together is unparalleled in modern history and our bilateral trading relationship dwarfs every other. In this moment, we need to summon and leverage the strength and depth of that special relationship.

• 13 Jan 2026 · Iran · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Foreign Secretary for giving me sight of her statement earlier. Every day for the last two weeks across Iran, we have seen brave and courageous men, women and children standing in defiance of a cruel, barbaric and despotic regime that has suppressed lives and freedom for over five decades. People are being arrested, attacked and murdered in the streets. It has been reported that over 2,000 people have now been killed, with one report even suggesting that the real figure is over 12,000, and over 10,000 have been arrested, according to Human Rights Activists in Iran. Towns have been flooded with soldiers to suppress protests, and hospitals are overwhelmed with the injured and murdered. Thousands upon thousands of Iran’s young, including the 23-year-old fashion student Rubina Aminian, have been shot, killed and buried by the side of roads as they called for a free Iran. We have seen reports of executions due to take place for those arrested just days earlier. As we mourn the victims of Tehran’s atrocities, we cannot let their dreams be buried. These were ordinary Iranians doing extraordinary things, fighting for their freedom. We stand with those brave Iranians. We back their calls for freedom, and we join in demands for the regime to end. This is a regime whose cruelty goes beyond the brutality we have seen in recent days. The theocratic terrorists in Iran have for too long threatened regional security, with Hamas, Hezbollah and the Houthis backed by Iran. They have backed Putin’s war in Ukraine and China’s campaign of repression. They have ignored demands to stop their nuclear weapons programme as they circumvent sanctions. They are holding British nationals Craig and Lindsay Foreman in cruel captivity. Iran is a hostile state. It is a threat to our country, to the middle east and to the world, and Britain must have the resolve to deal with it. I ask the Foreign Secretary: where is the Government’s resolve to stand up to Iran, to back those protesting and to work to bring about the end of the regime’s cruelty? As Iranian citizens are sacrificing their lives in the fight for their own liberation, what message of hope and reassurance does she give to those risking their lives on the streets of Iran each day? What is being done to challenge the Iranian regime over its violence? What is her assessment of the numbers killed and injured? It is right that the Iranian ambassador has finally been summoned, but why has this happened only today? The Foreign Secretary says she has spoken on the phone to her counterpart. What was his response? Did she raise the Foreman case with him? What was his response? The Iranian regime now claims to have the protest under “total control”. What assessment have the Government made of this claim? Britain and this House should stand with those campaigning for a free and democratic future, and if change comes, we should be ready to support this change. Given the statements from President Trump, what discussions have taken place with the US Administration over their plans, and are we aligned with the US and our regional partners? Are all scenarios being considered and planned for, including the potential use of UK/US military bases to stop the brutality of the Iranian regime? If the regime is being weakened, what assessment has been made of the risk of Iran retaliating and escalating plots to undermine our security here? Last year, the US and Israel took direct action to protect western and regional interests from Iran’s nuclear threats. The Government refused to give a view on those actions at the time. They sat on the fence in a feeble attempt not to upset their Back-Bench MPs. As people die fighting for their rights and for democracy, this is no time for weakness. Britain should be robust in cutting off the Iranian regime and removing the funds it relies on. I know that the Foreign Secretary has touched on some of this, but will she state what further direct sanctions will be placed specifically on the regime and particularly on its key henchmen? Will she confirm that no one from that regime will ever step foot in our country and threaten the security of Britain, should they try to flee Iran? Why has it taken so long to implement the reintroduction of sanctions under snapback? On the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, in opposition Labour said that it would proscribe the IRGC, but it has not done so in government. It is incumbent upon the Government to share with the House their reasons for not doing so. The Foreign Secretary referred to the report from Jonathan Hall, which she says they will take forward, but that was eight months ago, so when is this coming and why was Downing Street briefing yesterday that proscription would not happen? Will the IRGC be proscribed? The Opposition will work with the Government in the national interest, and in the interests of global security and stability, to pass legislation and other measures needed to keep us safe from Iran and put maximum pressure on its despotic regime. I have a suggestion for the Foreign Secretary. Instead of legislating for the £35 billion surrender of Chagos, will she use the time we have in this House to deal with the IRGC and the Iranian regime, in order to keep us safe? Will she use that £35 billion to bolster our defences, because at this critical moment Britain must do all we can to stand with Iranians fighting for their freedom, and to protect them and us from Tehran’s threat.

• 5 Jan 2026 · Middle East and North Africa · Hansard source

  More

  Britain’s place in the world matters, and the Opposition are clear about the fact that our influence should be used to its fullest effect to support efforts to combat the complex and dangerous conflicts and tensions in the middle east about which we speak all too often in the House. From Israel to Gaza, Iran, Syria and Yemen, the UK can and should be able to make a difference. The Opposition stand with the brave Iranians in their fight for freedom against their terrorist-supporting, despotic and oppressive Government. Their fight for freedom must prevail. What discussions are taking place with our partners in the region about the actions that can be taken to stop the regime’s cruel and barbaric acts against those who are campaigning for freedom? Iran threatens our domestic security by continuing its nuclear weapons programme, supplying weapons and drones to Russia, and backing China and its repression in Hong Kong. Britain must send it a clear signal by imposing more sanctions on it, and take action to stop the sanctions-busting that is taking place through cryptocurrencies and other methods that facilitate and bankroll this tyrannical regime. Why have the Government, and the Minister in his statement today, been silent on those specific issues, and where is the plan to keep Britain safe from Iran? What is being done to secure the immediate release from Iran’s cruel captivity of Lindsay and Craig Foreman, the two British nationals who, tragically, are still in captivity? I appreciate that the Minister referred to the call that took place on 19 December, but what practical measures are being taken? In Gaza, Hamas continue to breach the ceasefire. They have refused to release the body of the remaining Israeli hostage, Ran Gvili, which has been in terrorist captivity for more than 820 days. What pressure has been put on Hamas to adhere to the terms of the ceasefire, to disarm and to bring Ran back to his family? The Minister mentioned aid. Will he confirm that 4,200 trucks are delivering aid to Gaza each week in accordance with the 20-point peace plan, and that that is being overseen by the Co-ordination of Government Activities in the Territories and the Civil-Military Co-ordination Centre? Is he meeting representatives of the CMCC and COGAT to observe the operational delivery of this aid and the role that the United States is playing in securing aid delivery? As for the licensing of non-governmental organisations, can the Minister tell us how many agencies have undergone the licensing process and the contribution that they are making? We have heard a great deal in recent weeks and months about terrorists infiltrating aid agencies and diverting aid. What discussions has the Minister had with his Israeli counterparts about working with them to find practical solutions that will address the serious concerns that have been raised, so that more aid can get through and not be compromised by terrorists? On reforms to the Palestinian Authority, why are the Government still backing them with taxpayers’ money while they continue with the pay-to-slay programme? When will this practice stop? I agree with the Minister’s comments about Yemen, the conflict there, and the humanitarian suffering. Every single successive Government have worked tirelessly to secure more aid and to support global efforts to address the suffering in Yemen, but what direct discussions has the Minister had with the United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia, which are both long-standing partners and players, particularly on the recent dispute and tensions? Is there a bridging role that Britain can play? What planning is under way with our partners in the region to respond to further threats from the Houthis? On Syria, the actions targeted at Daesh were absolutely essential, but there are still many concerns about stability in Syria. When will progress be made on tackling sectarian violence, protecting minority rights and delivering democratic transition? What quantity of chemical weapons has been disposed of? What measures are being taken to stop the criminality, the gangs, the drugs and the weapons? Finally, on the el-Fattah case, I welcome the way in which the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office has instigated its inquiry. When will the inquiry into what has happened be completed? Were the Government informed by any other Departments about the views that were expressed? I recognise what the Minister has said thus far. Will Ministers—probably now in the Home Office—pick up the case and work fast to strip Alaa Abd el-Fattah of his citizenship, as the Opposition have been requesting over the recess?