Priti Patel MP: speeches

Speeches

• 26 Feb 2025 · British Indian Ocean Territory · Hansard source

  More

  My right hon. Friend makes an important point, and that is why we on the Opposition side of the House will be scrutinising the Government even further on this. We will be holding them to account. They simply do not value sovereignty and they are about to give away control, and that is simply unacceptable.

• 26 Feb 2025 · British Indian Ocean Territory · Hansard source

  More

  My right hon. Friend is spot on and makes a point that I have made. There are people—judges in particular—who clearly are undermining our integrity, sovereignty and the decision making in our own Government. They are pursuing their own interests and that is why we have to call out this deal.

• 26 Feb 2025 · British Indian Ocean Territory · Hansard source

  More

  My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. I have already made the point—Madam Deputy Speaker, you will have heard many of us say it—that there is a failure to be transparent. The fact that I have quoted so much from the Mauritius National Assembly’s Hansard speaks volumes about the conduct of this Government. It has been a great read, and the video clips are absolutely astonishing, but I certainly think that the Government should learn some lessons on high standards and raising the bar.

• 26 Feb 2025 · British Indian Ocean Territory · Hansard source

  More

  I did read that report. I have to say that that is exactly why we questioned the deal. It is the wrong approach, it really is. For all the lawyers sitting on the Labour Benches and in the Government—well, supposed lawyers—why are they not effectively looking at the integrity of the proposed deal and providing the scrutiny that is needed? We need Ministers to confirm when they decided that the proposed deal should be shared with the new American Administration, because there are so many questions as to how we got into this position. For weeks, Ministers refused to say—here at the Dispatch Box—that they would wait until President Trump took office, including failing to answer questions directly on 14 January. While they were refusing to say anything, the Mauritius Government suggested that Ministers here were not just eager but desperate to complete the deal by 20 January. But on 15 January, through a Downing Street briefing—not a statement to this House, Madam Deputy Speaker—we learnt that the Government would now wait to brief the new President and that the Prime Minister of Mauritius told his Assembly that it was a unilateral decision of the United Kingdom to postpone matters. When the Minister responds to the debate, will she finally confirm on which date the Government policy towards consulting the new US Administration and delaying the deal was agreed?

• 26 Feb 2025 · British Indian Ocean Territory · Hansard source

  More

  My right hon. Friend is absolutely right, and the Government seem to have a complete disregard for this. He is absolutely right that Mauritius never had sovereignty in the first instance, and now look at this terrible mess. This is a complete surrender and an epic failure of diplomacy.

• 26 Feb 2025 · British Indian Ocean Territory · Hansard source

  More

  My right hon. Friend is absolutely correct, and I am afraid it shows the lack of commitment to even understanding the sovereignty of the territory.

• 26 Feb 2025 · British Indian Ocean Territory · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I am afraid that the Government need to reflect on their own conduct. The British public are about to have to fork out huge amounts of money for a deal that has had no scrutiny or public airing whatsoever. The lack of transparency is one thing, but when we see this being repeated across every Government Department and even in a Prime Minister’s statement, it is simply unacceptable. There is something deeply shameful about the conduct and the lack of transparency of this Government. Secondly, on the negotiations, the Mauritius Prime Minister has publicly given a chronology of the counterproposals his Government have put forward to change the agreement reached and announced by his predecessor and the UK Prime Minister. He has stated to his National Assembly that, upon taking office in November, he had—guess what?—reviewed the deal. This is exactly the same deal that the Foreign Secretary has described as “a very good deal”, and one he was “confident” that the Mauritians were still really sure about, yet the Mauritian Prime Minister concluded that the deal “was so bad that we said, no way!” There is video footage of that as well. It is available online for everyone to see. He claimed that he subsequently submitted a counterproposal to the UK and that the UK Government responded on 16 December. Then, on 31 December, Mauritius submitted its response and requested a meeting in January, which was quickly arranged and held. That meeting took place. The Mauritius Cabinet then met on 15 January and, soon after, its delegation, led by its Attorney General, Gavin Glover, came to London to meet the Minister and the Attorney General, Lord Hermer. So, according to the Mauritians, a series of counterproposals and responses were exchanged, but when we have asked the Government about whether counterproposals were received and what they were, including at questions yesterday, Ministers have continually refused to say. I find it astonishing that this House has had to rely on Hansard from the Mauritius National Assembly. It is very good; I recommend that colleagues read it. We have had to rely on that Hansard to find out what UK Government Ministers are up to. That is why our motion demands the publication of a chronology so that we can know what has happened. When we hear from the Minister, perhaps she can confirm whether this account from the Prime Minister of Mauritius is correct. The Minister should also explain to the House the role that the Attorney General has been playing in these negotiations, because written answers have stated that his meeting with the Mauritius delegation last month was a “courtesy meeting”. But the Prime Minister of Mauritius has stated that when his Attorney General met his British counterpart, Lord Hermer, and the Under-Secretary of State in the Foreign Office, they both assured him of the commitment of the UK Government to signing the agreement between Mauritius and the United Kingdom. Giving that assurance seems to demonstrate that the Attorney General was actively playing a part in the negotiations, rather than attending a “courtesy meeting”, and in view of that previous interest in the British Indian Ocean Territory, questions will rightly be raised about his involvement. So can the Minister confirm whether the Attorney General has recused himself from these matters? Thirdly, we know from the account given by the Prime Minister of Mauritius that concessions have been made over sovereignty, even though Ministers here have refused to confirm or admit it. The joint statement of 3 October said: “For an initial period of 99 years, the United Kingdom will be authorised to exercise with respect to Diego Garcia the sovereign rights and authorities of Mauritius required to ensure the continued operation of the base well into the next century.” When we asked yesterday whether a change had been made, the Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, the hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty) said: “The fundamentals of the deal remain the same”. —[ Official Report , 25 February 2025; Vol. 762, c. 618.] But if the fundamentals of the deal remain the same, why has the Mauritius Prime Minister said that “there have been changes. The British agreed. We insisted that the sovereignty issue is the crucial and the most important issue…We insisted that it be clear that we have complete sovereignty on the Chagos, including Diego Garcia. The British agreed to that and this has been changed.” And why is it that, in a letter sent to me this week by the Foreign Secretary, he does not use the word “sovereignty” in relation to the lease, only stating: “The UK would retain all the rights and authorities we need to ensure the long-term, secure and effective operation of the base.” The difference in the language between the joint statement from October and this letter to me matters. The Minister, the Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister might not realise it, but removing sovereignty is a fundamental change, and it matters for the defence and security of our country.

• 26 Feb 2025 · British Indian Ocean Territory · Hansard source

  More

  Of course I give way.

• 26 Feb 2025 · British Indian Ocean Territory · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That this House regrets the reported multi-billion pound cost of the UK-Mauritius deal; notes the risk the deal presents to the UK’s strategic interests; further notes that it was a policy choice, not a legal necessity, and the concerns held by Chagossians over the Government’s failure to engage comprehensively with them; and calls on the Government to— (1) lay before this House a chronology of the negotiations between the UK Government and the Government of Mauritius, since 4 July 2024; (2) confirm whether the account of Prime Minister Ramgoolam given to the Mauritius National Assembly on 4 February 2025 is correct that (a) there has been a change in the sovereignty arrangements over Diego Garcia from those previously agreed, (b) changes have been made to the terms of the lease on Diego Garcia, and (c) changes have been made to the costs of the deal since it was first agreed and announced in the UK-Mauritius joint statement on 3 October 2024; (3) confirm from which departmental budgets the costs of this deal will come and what they will be, including whether any of the proposed increase in defence spending, as announced by the Prime Minister on 25 February, will be used to pay for this; (4) explain what involvement the Attorney General has had with this deal; (5) set out the negotiating objectives established by the Prime Minister’s Special Envoy for BIOT negotiations and the reasons the Government sought to accelerate negotiations and conclude them before the Mauritian elections. When Labour negotiates, Britain loses. Nowhere is that more obvious than in Labour’s botched, embarrassing, humiliating and secretive deal with Mauritius to surrender the sovereignty of the British Indian Ocean Territory. In a world that is increasingly dangerous and uncertain, where threats from both state and non-state actors are growing and our national economic and security interests face threats from new technology, it is inconceivable that a Government, whose first concern and priority must be the defence of the realm, would give away one of the most important strategic military assets that we hold, let alone pay a foreign Government for its continued use. It is like handing over your house to someone else, and having to pay for the privilege of continuing to live there. This socialist Government are committed to the principles of redistributing wealth—Government Members were cheering about that—but redistributing the sovereignty of key strategic and military assets in this way is not just socialism but recklessness. It is incompetent and, quite frankly, irresponsible. We cannot afford to gamble in any way when it comes to our national security and defence.

• 26 Feb 2025 · British Indian Ocean Territory · Hansard source

  More

  I will give way one more time.

• 26 Feb 2025 · British Indian Ocean Territory · Hansard source

  More

  My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. It is completely duplicitous. That is no way for any Government to conduct themselves, particularly in relation to such a matter. To conclude, in negotiating this deal and agreeing to surrender—

• 26 Feb 2025 · British Indian Ocean Territory · Hansard source

  More

  My right hon. and learned Friend absolutely speaks sense on this issue and that is exactly why I enjoyed working with him so much on some of the challenges we faced in government. That is exactly the point. Turning to the substance, or proposed substance, in the proposed treaty, the Labour Government failed to provide any transparency over plans, but we are fortunate that the new Prime Minister of Mauritius, Navin Ramgoolam, and his Government have been much more open and candid about the negotiations, sharing the details of the humiliating concessions that Labour Ministers have made in this epic failure of diplomacy.

• 26 Feb 2025 · British Indian Ocean Territory · Hansard source

  More

  I am sorry, Madam Deputy Speaker, but I did say that I would give way to my hon. Friend.

• 26 Feb 2025 · British Indian Ocean Territory · Hansard source

  More

  My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. It is shameful, because these are exactly the questions that we on the Opposition Benches were putting forward to the Government, and they were simply refusing to be transparent and answer any questions whatsoever. The fact of the matter is that the credibility and integrity of the Government is at stake. If they cannot come clean on these simple questions, what else are they hiding?

• 26 Feb 2025 · British Indian Ocean Territory · Hansard source

  More

  The bottom line in all this is that there is no transparency at all from the Government. We will absolutely press and hold them to account on that. I come back to the point we have just heard from the Opposition Benches, which is that no Minister—not even the Defence Secretary today—has told us where that money is coming from. Perhaps this Minister does not know the cost, or maybe she needs permission from the Attorney General, or from Rachel from accounts, even to comment on the numbers, but the House must know. Labour has sought to hide behind the real reason for what is going on. It is constantly using the fig leaf of national security to avoid telling British taxpayers how much the deal will cost. That is simply not acceptable. If the Government will not tell us the numbers, they should at least tell us where the budget has come from. In a written parliamentary answer of 22 November, the Chief Secretary to the Treasury confirmed to me that he had engaged in discussions and reached an agreement with Cabinet colleagues on the financial elements of the proposed lease of the military base on Diego Garcia, as part of the UK-Mauritius agreement announced on 3 October. Will the Minister confirm—she can intervene now if she would like to—whether that funding will come from the defence budget? If it does, will it count towards the new 2.5% target announced by the Prime Minister yesterday? It would be a stain on the Government if they reached that target as a result of wasting money—hard-pressed taxpayers’ money—on that unnecessary lease. The British public deserve accountability and transparency.

• 26 Feb 2025 · British Indian Ocean Territory · Hansard source

  More

  My right hon. Friend is absolutely correct. Sovereignty matters, and the Minister could not admit it to the House yesterday in the Chamber, but perhaps when a Minister sums up today they can confirm that change in position. We need to know whether we have lost sovereignty and lost control. Fourthly, it is clear there has been a change in the lease agreement—this letter makes that crystal clear. When the Foreign Secretary made his statement to the House on 7 October 2024, he stated that the lease “is initially for 99 years, but the UK has the right to extend that.” —[ Official Report , 7 October 2024; Vol. 754, c. 46.] The impression given was that this could be unilaterally extended, as he would not say at the time that both parties needed to agree.

• 26 Feb 2025 · British Indian Ocean Territory · Hansard source

  More

  My right hon. Friend is fast-forwarding to some of my wider remarks, but he is absolutely right. I thank him for his time in the Foreign Office. It was under Lord Cameron when all this was stopped. It was an advisory opinion. In 2019, it was the Conservative Government and Conservative Foreign Office Ministers who made that point and stopped all this nonsense from going on in the first place. Conservative Members stand in support of the national interest. I pay tribute to my colleagues in previous Conservative Governments for resisting the efforts of some countries, including China and Argentina, who voted at the UN General Assembly in May 2019 to demand that the UK withdraw from its administration of the Chagos archipelago within six months. The former Foreign Secretary Lord Cameron deserves credit for resisting the claims made by Mauritius and for ensuring that our sovereignty was not surrendered while he was Foreign Secretary. How have we got here? As you will know, Madam Deputy Speaker, from the sheer volume of urgent question applications that you and Mr Speaker have presided over on the issue, the Government have acted in a secretive manner, providing little information on the deal agreed and how it was reached. Getting facts and information out of the Government has been like extracting water from a stone, but after asking many questions we have managed to secure some information. What do we know? [ Interruption. ] I can tell Government Front Benchers who are chuntering away—perhaps they would like to listen to some of the information—that less than three weeks after taking office, on 23 July, the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary prioritised this issue by meeting the then Prime Minister of Mauritius, Pravind Jugnauth. We do not know what was discussed at that meeting, but on 6 September the Foreign Secretary announced that Jonathan Powell would be the special envoy. On 3 October—less than three months after coming into office and when the House was not sitting—the Foreign Secretary confirmed that he had waved the white flag of surrender. He confirmed that the Labour Government would hand over the sovereignty of the British Indian Ocean Territory, pay a lease for the use of the base at Diego Garcia—the amount has been kept secret—and pay towards an economic development partnership with Mauritius and a Chagossian trust fund. Not only was the deal put together in haste and in secret, but serious concerns were raised about the timing of the agreement. The then Mauritian Prime Minister called a general election the following day—4 October 2024—and, of course, the presidential election of our ally and partner in Diego Garcia, the United States of America, was held the following month. The result of both those elections led to changes in Administrations; I will touch on that shortly. The decision over the future of this key strategic military and security asset has been taken in advance of the strategic defence review being completed, the spending review and the China audit. How can the Government justify giving away the Chagos islands and losing control of this asset before they have thoroughly assessed the threats we face and our long-term defence and security needs? Unlike lawyer-led Labour—

• 26 Feb 2025 · British Indian Ocean Territory · Hansard source

  More

  I cannot speak to the hon. Member’s confusion, but let us be clear that it is not the Conservative party that is putting forward a surrender deal. Let me be crystal clear: we are not surrendering our territory or sovereignty in any way whatsoever. While the Labour Government, inspired by their dogmatic commitment to misguided—

• 26 Feb 2025 · British Indian Ocean Territory · Hansard source

  More

  There is plenty of speculation as to why the Government wish to go down this course, and it is not in our national interest. I will say it: Labour does not represent the national interest when it comes to sovereignty and fighting for the real freedoms that the British people believe in. I have spoken already about the terms of the lease. The Labour Government have also made concessions on the cost—the price that British taxpayers will be forced to pay because of this shambolic, economically illiterate Government. For weeks we have been asking about the cost and any changes made from the position in October, and for weeks Ministers have failed to give answers, but the Prime Minister of Mauritius has confirmed that concessions have indeed been made. He told his National Assembly that “we also wanted to do front loading; some of the money had to be front loaded, —he said that with a lot of enthusiasm— “and that also is being agreed to”. It was only after I wrote to the Foreign Secretary to highlight this that he finally accepted that this has happened and that changes have been made. He wrote in his letter to me: “There have been some changes to the financial arrangements to enable a limited element of frontloading, but the overall net present value of the treaty payments (which accounts for the impact of indexation) has not changed since”. That change was not announced to the House, and nor did the Minister, or any Minister, mention that in this Chamber or when I raised it in the House yesterday. We know that the costs will be front-loaded, but we still do not know what they will actually be. The Foreign Secretary told me in his letter that the £18 billion figure reported “is false and significantly exceeds the quantum.” So what is the figure? Is it £9 billion, £12 billion, £15 billion? Is it higher or lower? The Minister need only nod to give us clarity on that, but perhaps she does not even know the cost.

• 26 Feb 2025 · British Indian Ocean Territory · Hansard source

  More

  I will give way shortly. We also know from the Mauritius Prime Minister that the lease extension provisions have—guess what—been changed and diluted. He told his National Assembly, talking to their Leader of the Opposition, that “the agreement was for an agreement of 99 years, and then, unilaterally, the British would decide on an extension of that agreement for 40 years. We had no say in it. We disagreed completely! It cannot be that an agreement is signed for 99 years, and then the British on their own would decide that they will renew the agreement and we have no say in it.” He went on to say that he has got this changed: “The extension has to be agreed with both parties. It cannot be unilateral from the British. And I am glad to inform the Leader of the Opposition that the British have agreed to that also.” The Foreign Secretary, in his letter to me, remarked that the 99-year lease “can be extended if both sides agree. We will have the right of first refusal, meaning it can’t be given to any other country at the end of the treaty without us first agreeing.” That is, frankly, an astonishing response to receive, and an astonishing concession for the Labour Government to make. This deal was bad enough at the outset, but now we know that, despite the Minister’s claim that the “fundamentals of the deal remain the same”, —[ Official Report , 25 February 2025; Vol. 762, c. 618.] we have gone from the UK being able unilaterally to extend the lease by 40 years to now being able to extend it only with the agreement of Mauritius, and there is a “right of first refusal” caveat in that lease too. The House should be shocked by this, and we need answers. I urge the Minister to answer these questions when she responds. What happens at the end of the 99-year period if both parties cannot agree? What happens if we want to extend and Mauritius does not? What will happen to the base and the equipment under those circumstances? What if, at the end of 99 years, the price that Mauritius asks for is too high? If we cannot unilaterally extend the lease, then—guess what—we have lost control. The Labour Government may not realise this, but Mauritius knows it very well. The British taxpayer knows this extremely well, and of course our enemies know it—they are sitting back and watching, rubbing their hands with glee, because on all the key negotiation points, Labour has backed down and Britain is losing control.

• 25 Feb 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  Russia, Iran and China all pose threats to Britain, and they go out of their way to do us harm. Can the Foreign Secretary explain why the Government have yet to implement the foreign influence registration scheme, which the previous Government legislated for, and can he confirm when it will come in and whether China will be on the enhanced tier?

• 25 Feb 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  This House stands united with the people of Ukraine. In the light of Putin’s brutality towards the people of Ukraine, what discussions will the Foreign Secretary be having with allies, including his American counterpart, on the international effort to prosecute Russia for the invasion of Ukraine and the sheer barbarism it has inflicted on the people of Ukraine?

• 25 Feb 2025 · UK-Mauritius Treaty · Hansard source

  More

  The Foreign Secretary has proudly said that his Chagos surrender plan was a good deal. He told the Foreign Affairs Committee back in November that it was “a very good deal”, and that he was “confident that the Mauritians are still sure about that”. Three weeks ago, the Prime Minister of Mauritius told his National Assembly that since his election, he had concluded the deal “was so bad that we said, no way!” and that he had extracted more concessions from the UK on the length of the lease, the extension on sovereignty and the cost. Can the Minister confirm that changes have been made since the announcement of the deal on 3 October last year, and does he disagree with the account given by the Prime Minister of Mauritius?

• 25 Feb 2025 · Palestinians in Gaza: US Policy · Hansard source

  More

  My thoughts continue to be with the hostages held in Gaza and the appalling suffering they and their families are facing. The world has seen the brutality inflicted by the Iranian-sponsored terrorists, Hamas, who are a major obstacle to bringing about a sustainable and just peace in the middle east. The Foreign Secretary has previously agreed that there cannot be any future whatsoever for Hamas controlling Gaza. Can he provide an update on the actions he has undertaken to put an end to Hamas control and ensure we get to the third phase of the ceasefire? Will he discuss this issue when he goes to America with the Prime Minister to meet the President of the United States?

• 24 Feb 2025 · Ukraine · Hansard source

  More

  I begin by thanking the Foreign Secretary for his statement and for advance sight of it. The House stands united with Ukraine on this grim milestone. Three years on from Putin’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine, we all think of the innocent lives caught up in this terrible conflict: the civilians mercilessly killed in towns such as Bucha and Irpin and in the east, the young Ukrainian children forcibly deported to Russia, the families of brave troops who have not returned alive from the frontline, all those with life-changing injuries, and those who have lost their homes and possessions. When the war started, the UK led global efforts to back Ukraine and, rightly, to punish Putin. From training tens of thousands of Ukrainian recruits on British soil and donating Challenger 2 battle tanks and Storm Shadow missiles, to being part of an unprecedented international sanctions response that has deprived Putin’s regime of $400 billion and one of the first countries to provide Ukraine with that multibillion-pound, multi-year funding pledge in military aid, the UK has led the way for Ukraine. Our support has made a material difference to Ukraine’s ability to hold the line. We must never forget that the cost of this war to Putin has been catastrophic. Russia’s Black sea fleet has been pummelled, and it is likely that by summer Russia will have incurred 1 million casualties, with Putin desperately turning to North Korea for troops and to Iran for weapons. Meanwhile, as we have heard, Russia’s economy is in dire straits. There have been uprisings against Putin’s regime, and the central pitch of his leadership—that he was the great restorer of Russia’s stability—lies in ruins. The British public continue rightly to stand resolutely with Ukraine, and they expect us as politicians across the House to do so. I thank again the many thousands who have so generously opened up their homes to Ukrainians fleeing the war, including through the Homes for Ukraine scheme. They have genuinely showed the best of our country, the best of Britain. Although there has been much debate about the course of the conflict in recent days, the war continues to rage. I urge the Government to continue giving Ukraine everything it needs—all the hardware it needs and the diplomatic support to strengthen its hand. I am sure that the Foreign Secretary, with the Prime Minister, will do that in Washington this week. There must be no let-up whatsoever. We welcome today’s announcement on new sanctions. Will the Foreign Secretary confirm that there are no plans to lift sanctions in the future? If he discusses the use of sanctions when he goes to Washington this week, and the role of the United States in that policy, will he assure us that he will update Members on whether we should expect to see any new resources and support, in either military aid or humanitarian support, in the coming weeks? As the Foreign Secretary has said, now is the time for Britain to lead, as we did from day one, and ensure that Ukraine is in the best possible position to decide its own future. We should be very clear that it remains ultimately for Ukraine, as a proud and sovereign nation that has sacrificed so much to defend itself, to decide its own future, and that is peace through strength. We want this terrible war to be brought to an end and, like President Zelensky, we want a lasting, reliable and just peace. However, the Euro-Atlantic community must continue to be intensely robust in the face of Putin’s aggression, because the lesson of the past 20 years is clear: he only comes back for more. We must ensure that an illegal invasion like this can never happen again. We need a stronger deterrent. We recognise that the Prime Minister has commented on the options and the security guarantees in recent days, and I can assure the House that His Majesty’s Opposition stand ready to engage with the Government at every single level. We must lead our NATO allies in Europe. In the long-term, collective defence and planning must be co-ordinated to back Ukraine in its fight for freedom. As the Government know, there is already a fully-funded plan to spend 2.5% of GDP on defence by 2030, as set out by the previous Government. I strongly urge the Government to at least look at a minimum plan to match that commitment. We will work with them on how that is delivered, to set a new benchmark for other NATO countries to follow and to fire up everything we can on defence production. The US knows that the UK has an influential role in NATO, and I am sure the Foreign Secretary will be discussing that this week. The target to spend 2.5% of GDP is not a goal in itself, but an important step on the journey to increase the strength of our defence spending. Given the threats that our nation faces, I urge the Government and the Foreign Secretary—because the issue is within his purview and Department—to review and repurpose some of the 0.5% currently spent on official development assistance to further our national defence, safety and security. Finally, the moral and economic case for mobilising sovereign assets of Russia to support Ukraine is very clear. The Foreign Secretary has spoken about that already, but I urge the Government to do more. Mr Speaker, we stand united as one House. Slava Ukraini.