Priti Patel MP: speeches

Speeches

• 9 Sept 2025 · Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend is absolutely correct about UNCLOS and in highlighting the insecurities and serious challenges. It may be forthcoming, but at this stage we do not know what levels of protection will be provided or will continue. We do not know what level of resource Mauritius will put into the MPA or what the UK will contribute.

• 9 Sept 2025 · Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I thank my right hon. Friend for his contribution, and for pursuing this line of question in the Chamber with other Ministers. He is absolutely correct. We know that the United States of America is not contributing to the cost of the deal. The cost is solely on the British taxpayer. [ Interruption. ] Operational costs of the base are different; that is not in this treaty or this Bill. The Bill represents a series of measures, not the treaty in its entirety. The Government blocked this House from voting on the treaty during the 21-day process provided for in the Constitutional Reform and Government Act 2010. Last week, when asked at oral questions why we were not getting a vote on the costs, the then Foreign Secretary—now Deputy Prime Minister—proclaimed that there would be a vote, but the Government have not seen fit to put forward a motion. As the explanatory notes to the Bill confirm, the Bill will not authorise expenditure. That is not acceptable. We will table amendments to the Bill to hold the Deputy Prime Minister to his word and ensure that this House has a rightful say over the payments to Mauritius. Let us be clear: unless there is a direct vote on the costs, Labour will have cheated Parliament and Britain out of having a say on the financial implications of the £35 billion that British taxpayers are being forced to pay a foreign Government. That expenditure means higher taxes for British taxpayers and less spending for British people across all constituencies around the country. Shamefully, this is all to fund tax cuts, debt reduction and new investment in not our country, but Mauritius. I will gladly give way to any Minister or Government Back Bencher who wants to explain why it is acceptable to deny Parliament a vote on this £35 billion of expenditure, and why the money should be given to a foreign Government, not invested in this country. If they need to check that with Rachel from accounts or Lord Hermer, I am sure they can do so before the end of the debate. Labour giving away British taxpayers’ money to a foreign Government to rent land that we already own is reckless and irresponsible.

• 9 Sept 2025 · Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I will give way one more time to my hon. Friend.

• 9 Sept 2025 · Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. I say gently to some Labour Members, who are laughing and sneering at a fellow Member of this House when she is making a very valid point, that they are simply being disrespectful. It says a great deal. The hon. Member for Dunfermline and Dollar (Graeme Downie) can laugh as much as he wants. The British public see Labour as a party that does not stand up for Britain and British values, and that is not something to be laughed or sneered at.

• 9 Sept 2025 · Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I will not; I have given way plenty of times to the hon. Gentleman. The surrender of sovereignty means that Britian will be a rule taker, taking the laws, rules and commands of Mauritius, and that restricts and impedes base operations. For example, Mauritius has signed up to the Pelindaba treaty, banning the stationing and storage of nuclear weapons; no Minister has been able to provide a definitive answer when questioned about how that may impact our security and defence, once the UK is no longer sovereign in, or able to exercise sovereign rights over, the Chagos islands and Diego Garcia. Under the terms of the treaty, we are bound to notify Mauritius of various activities relating to our use of the base, including operations from the base against that country, and movements of our allies’ vessels. Despite heavy questioning, at no point have Ministers explained in detail how the notifications will work, and who will have access to the information.

• 9 Sept 2025 · Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend is absolutely right; at the heart of this is transparency about negotiations, including fiscal negotiations.

• 9 Sept 2025 · Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend is absolutely right; it is absolutely shameful. I come back to the fundamental principle that this House will have to consider: at a time when hard-pressed British taxpayers are struggling, with significant tax rises and the share of the tax burden on the public going up, the Government will have to have a good, hard look at themselves and justify this appalling cost to their own constituents.

• 9 Sept 2025 · Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill · Hansard source

  More

  My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. There is something fundamental here about the negotiations—I think the Minister alluded to this earlier on. The Government were effectively just listening to leftie lawyers and advisory judgments and acting because they were frightened that their left-wing lawyer friends would pursue even more lawfare against us. The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, the hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty) told the Foreign Affairs Committee: “Our view is that, without this deal, it was inevitable that Mauritius would pursue and secure a legally binding judgment against the UK. Indeed, legally binding provisional measures could also have been secured within weeks”. The Government have never—not once—detailed what the legal threat is beyond hiding behind spurious aspects of international law. I have to say that it is a defeatist attitude that Labour has taken. Britain is Europe’s leading defence power, a pillar of NATO in Europe and a P5 member of the UN Security Council with a right of veto. We are not bound by advisory judgments pursued by Mauritius at the ICJ—which, by the way, included a judge who is a member of the Chinese Communist party. By being vocal in conceding defeat and unwilling to defend Britain from a barrage of lawfare, Labour has let Britain’s standing on the world stage plummet, and its decisions will have serious consequences for us. Let us talk about the money. We all know that this Labour Government are big spenders when it comes to splashing about taxpayers’ money, and the costs of Labour’s surrender treaty are astronomical at £34.7 billion—a figure which, by the way, we had to drag out of the Government Actuary’s Department because Labour Ministers repeatedly refused to disclose the cash payments when asked. In fact, because the payments are linked to inflation, as my hon. Friend the Member for South Northamptonshire (Sarah Bool) has pointed out, guess what? The cash cost could be even higher. That means higher taxes for our constituents, which is nothing for those on the Labour Benches to crow about.

• 9 Sept 2025 · Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Absolutely right. Of course, this Government do not like speaking about inflation for all the macro-economic reasons we know about. Inflation under this Government continues to rise, which speaks volumes about their handling of the economy. This deal is so bad for Britain, it has left our country humiliated and weaker on the world stage. Our friends and enemies alike are laughing at the UK and Labour’s epic diplomatic failure to stand up for our national interests.

• 9 Sept 2025 · Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I will be absolutely crystal clear for the benefit of this House and for Hansard , too: there was no deal whatsoever. The Government can put out as much fake news as they wish and carry on pretending and crowing that there was a deal, but there was no deal. It was the last Conservative Foreign Secretary who stopped any negotiations and discussions, and they were stopped—Lord Cameron himself has said that. On that basis alone, I think Labour Members should all apologise to Lord Cameron, and perhaps even correct the record.

• 9 Sept 2025 · Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend is absolutely right. It speaks volumes about the priorities that this Labour Government—socialist to the core in how they like to spend public money—are focused on. Come November, when the Chancellor has her Budget, there will be no point crowing about the past and blaming other people, other countries and international forces and factors. This is a fiscal mess made by this Labour Government with this utterly scandalous, appalling and reckless financial giveaway.

• 9 Sept 2025 · Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill · Hansard source

  More

  My right hon. Friend is absolutely correct.

• 9 Sept 2025 · Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend has summed it up: the whole process is completely inadequate, with no transparency and no dispute resolution mechanisms. This is just too messy, given that we are talking about the defence and security of the country. Again, this is exactly why we should have been able to debate the treaty on the Floor of the House and give it the scrutiny that is required. Let us hope that the Prime Minister and his lefty lawyers are not involved in the dispute resolution mechanisms, because Britain will come out worst. As we know, when Labour negotiates, Britain loses. At the press conference announcing the signing of the treaty, it was interesting to hear the Prime Minister almost gaslighting critics of the treaty by comparing them—that is, us—to China, Russia and Iran as he arrogantly declared his views and position. On 4 and 11 June in the House, he said that the treaty “has been opposed by our adversaries, Russia, China and Iran”. We know that 6,000 miles away, at the celebration party press conference in Mauritius, China was singled out by the Mauritian Government for praise. According to the press release, Deputy Prime Minister Paul Bérenger noted that China’s “unwavering support played a critical role in the international recognition of Mauritian sovereignty.” A few days later, the Chinese ambassador issued Mauritius with “massive congratulations” on securing the surrender of the Chagos islands. This summer, the Mauritian Government published a press release saying that the President expressed “gratitude” for China’s “unwavering support” for Mauritius’s sovereignty claim over the Chagos archipelago. Iran has also been supportive of the Mauritian claim for the Chagos islands, with its ambassador saying earlier this year: “The Islamic Republic of Iran has always supported Mauritius’s position regarding the Chagos issue. So, Chagos belongs to the Mauritian people. We support its return and have made many efforts in the past toward that goal.” As for Russia, when meeting Putin, the former Mauritian President Vyapoory stated: “We appreciate the support of Russia in our claim for our sovereignty on Chagos.” Ministers have been asked in parliamentary questions for the evidential basis of the Prime Minister’s claims about the apparent opposition of those three countries who threaten our interests, but they have not come forward with it. When the Minister responds, will he finally explain the grounds behind the Prime Minister’s malicious, almost spurious, remarks, or apologise for those claims? All the evidence shows that, far from opposing the surrender treaty, our enemies actually back it, which means that Britain is weaker.

• 9 Sept 2025 · Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move an amendment, to leave out from “That” to the end of the question and add: “this House declines to give a Second Reading to the Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill because it implacably opposes the United Kingdom ceding sovereignty over the British Indian Ocean Territory to Mauritius, and is therefore opposed to the terms of the Treaty to which the Bill gives effect, in particular Article 11 of the Treaty which will mean the United Kingdom paying £34.7 billion to Mauritius, leading to tax rises in the United Kingdom to provide tax cuts in Mauritius; because the Treaty does not secure the base on Diego Garcia, in particular because it does not embody the “right to extend” the 99-year lease to which the then Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs referred in this House on 7 October 2024; because the measures in the Treaty leave the base vulnerable, and therefore represent a threat to the strategic interests of the United Kingdom; and because the Treaty does not properly protect the rights of the Chagossian people, or the future of the Marine Protected Area.” We on the Opposition side of the House stand against Labour’s £35 billion Chagos surrender deal. Everything about this surrender deal is wrong, from the way it was negotiated behind closed doors within weeks of Labour coming to power, to the betrayal— [ Interruption. ] I will happily give way.

• 9 Sept 2025 · Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill · Hansard source

  More

  No, I have given way to the hon. Gentleman many times.

• 9 Sept 2025 · Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I will not. I know that the hon. Gentleman will speak later. I turn to the British Chagossians. As well as undermining our security and defence interests and ripping off British taxpayers, Labour has betrayed the British Chagossians. Members on both sides of the House have recognised and acknowledged that the Chagossian community has faced injustice and hardship. Their removal from the Chagos islands is a source of great and profound regret. I pay tribute to the Chagossian community in Britain for their campaigning, and to Henry Smith, our former colleague as Member of Parliament for Crawley, who kept pursuing and raising the issue, and who fought in the House for their rights. As a result, we gave the community new rights in the Nationality and Borders Act 2022, which Labour voted against. I hope that the Minister can give assurances that those rights will not be undermined by the citizenship measures in clause 4 of the Bill. Because of that past, it is so important that any decisions made about the future of the Chagos islands are made with the community in mind, and that their needs are fully respected. Ten years ago, when the Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, the hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty), was the Opposition’s spokesman, he said: “The people of Chagos must be at the heart of decisions about their future…the UK Government have a fundamental moral responsibility towards the islanders that will not go away.” —[ Official Report, 28 October 2015; Vol. 601, c. 192WH.] But this treaty fails them. I have met the community many times and heard their concerns and frustrations; I think everyone in the House will acknowledge their frustrations. They feel that they have been ignored throughout the process, and that the treaty has no guarantees for them. There is a £40 million Chagossian trust fund that UK taxpayers will capitalise, but the UK and the British Chagossians will have no control or say over how it will be used or controlled by the Government of Mauritius. I highlight that point because the Chagossians feel strongly—they fundamentally know—that they cannot trust the Government of Mauritius. The Bill and the treaty make no provision for the British Chagossians to benefit from the trust fund, or be involved in its governance; nor are they guaranteed any right to visit the Chagos islands. Those decisions will be controlled by Mauritius once sovereignty is surrendered. Hon. Members across the House who have spoken up for British Chagossians know of their fears. It is right that I amplify those fears, or at least raise them in the House, because their voices have not been heard. Now is the time for them to be counted, for their voices to be heard, and, importantly, for their rights to be defended. Another damning indictment of the Bill and the treaty is the way in which they fail to safeguard the 640,000 sq km marine protected area. Its unique biodiversity enables important marine research to be conducted. In just the last few weeks, a study that included researchers from Exeter and Heriot-Watt universities and the Zoological Society of London was published. It noted: “Our results provide clear evidence for the value of the Chagos Archipelago VLMPA for protecting a diverse range of large and mobile marine species.” Yet all we have heard thus far from the Government is warm words about intentions to continue with an MPA. No details have been published.

• 9 Sept 2025 · Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Let me be clear: I was not a member of the previous Government, but the hon. Member knows perfectly well that no one on the Conservative Benches has any authority to publish classified papers from previous Governments. [ Interruption. ] He might laugh about that, but those on the Labour Benches might want to apologise to Lord Cameron of Chipping Norton, who actually stopped the deal. He has been grossly misrepresented this afternoon in this debate.

• 9 Sept 2025 · Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. and learned Member is absolutely right. That is why it was important to have a debate on the Floor of the House when the treaty came together, but we did not have one. The treaty brings into question everything about security, including our ability to be as strong and secure as we need to be. It will come as no surprise to Members to hear that now that our sovereignty over the base is being surrendered, our enemies are queuing up to—guess what?—make friends with Mauritius. Just days before the surrender treaty was signed, Russia agreed a new partnership agreement with Mauritius that includes marine research. That so-called “marine research” conducted by Russia could take place just a handful of miles away from our base. Mauritius has also been courted extensively by Iran and China for further partnerships in a range of other areas. Despite the warnings, this inept Labour Government have failed to act to safeguard our interests.

• 9 Sept 2025 · Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill · Hansard source

  More

  No, I am answering my hon. Friend. The real judge will be the British people. How will they view a Labour Government giving away £35 billion to a foreign Government? That money could be spent in this country. It is simply not acceptable at all.

• 2 Sept 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  On 7 August, I wrote to the Foreign Secretary about the deadly sectarian violence that we have witnessed in Syria, which threatens further destabilisation and fallout that we all know could come soon. While I have not received a response, I did specifically ask in that letter whether he would call for justice and accountability for those responsible for the recent killings—the reports are very shocking. Does he agree that there could be a role for the Commission for International Justice and Accountability, which I understand the Minister for the Middle East met and praised in Damascus just last week?

• 2 Sept 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  The Joint Committee on Human Rights’ recent report into transnational repression recommended that China be placed on the enhanced tier of the foreign influence registration scheme, alongside Iran and Russia. Clearly, this follows concerns following the China audit and the national security strategy, so I have a very specific question for the Foreign Secretary: when will he recognise that China is a threat to our national security and put it on the enhanced tier of FIRS?

• 2 Sept 2025 · Russia: Economic Sanctions · Hansard source

  More

  As Ukraine passes the grim milestone of its fourth independence day since Putin began his barbaric invasion, we have seen nothing but sustained aerial assaults and brutality from Putin. May I ask the Foreign Secretary directly what he will do to redouble his efforts in relation to sanctions—specific sanctions on those who are profiteering and making money from Russian oil? That is effectively what is fuelling Putin’s war machine and his barbaric assault on democracy.

• 1 Sept 2025 · Middle East · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Foreign Secretary for advance sight of his statement. Let me also express my sympathy for the people of Afghanistan who are suffering as a result of last night’s major earthquake. Since the House last met, the awful conflict in the middle east has continued to see lives lost, with intolerable suffering. Hamas continues to refuse the release of all remaining hostages, despite the best efforts of those trying to broker peace. The hostages are now approaching 700 days in captivity, and the whole House will have been sickened by the harrowing clip of the emaciated hostage Evyatar David, which was released by Hamas over the summer. The humanitarian situation in Gaza is dire, and we are all familiar with the reports that we have seen daily on news channels. The inhumane suffering, the recent airstrikes and the inability to provide food for civilians simply cannot go on. We all want an urgent and sustainable end to this conflict. We want to see the release of the hostages from terrorist captivity, and to see aid for the people of Gaza. There are key questions for the British Government to answer. The British Government are in a position to help influence those outcomes, but are they actually fully leveraging their ability to do so? The Government’s frequent statements have so far not moved the dial closer to a sustainable end to the conflict, and, as the Foreign Secretary himself has said, we are not in a position to see any alleviation of this horrendous situation. Diplomacy is about putting in the hard yards to find solutions, not just about giving statements, and I therefore want to ask the Foreign Secretary three specific questions. First, are the Government taking any new specific action to tighten the screws on Hamas and pile more pressure on them to release the hostages? Should we expect more measures to further degrade Hamas’s ability to finance their campaign of terror? Why are the Government not leading international efforts to produce a credible plan to do exactly that, with an agreement from all the key regional partners and players with an interest in peace to see Hamas leave Gaza? Secondly, can the Foreign Secretary update the House on precisely where we stand and what Britain is contributing to the efforts of the United Nations and our regional allies to broker the release of hostages, and to an end of the conflict? Are we intimately involved, and are we sending in the UK expertise to help, given that we have great expertise when it comes to brokering negotiations of this kind? Thirdly, while we note the Foreign Secretary’s announcement yesterday about support for women and girls, the Government have yet to make essential breakthroughs on aid. Ministers must obviously work around the clock with everyone—with all our partners, including the Israelis and multinational institutions—to unblock the situation by coming up with practical solutions, even new solutions, on which all sides can focus when it comes to getting medical and food aid into Gaza. That must provide a significant increase in food and medical supplies reaching civilians while also addressing Israeli concerns about aid diversion, because those concerns are constant. Is the UK working with the multilateral bodies to try to mediate in the divisions and breakdowns of trust that have emerged with the Government of Israel? Is the Foreign Secretary considering schemes similar to those implemented by the Conservative Government, such as the floating piers that, working with the United States and Cyprus, we put in place off the coast of Gaza to get aid in? We need pragmatic and practical solutions to get food and medical supplies to innocent civilians in Gaza. Let me now turn to Labour’s decision to recognise a Palestinian state. The Government announced that huge shift in British policy just days after the House went into recess. We all support a two-state solution that guarantees security for both Israelis and Palestinians, but the Foreign Secretary must know that recognising a Palestinian state in September will not secure the lasting peace that we all want to see. Recognition is meaningful only if it is part of a formal peace process, and it should not happen while the hostages are still being held in terrorist captivity and while Hamas’s reign of terror continues. Can the Foreign Secretary explain his plan to go ahead with recognition while hostages are still being held, and while Hamas, who have predictably welcomed and been emboldened by this move, continue to hold on to power in Gaza? What practical measures are we proposing to remove Hamas from Gaza? The Foreign Secretary must realise that recognition will not secure the release of the hostages or get aid into Gaza immediately. We must always consider what tools of leverage we have in respect of future peace processes and negotiations that could actually help to establish a two-state solution and peace in the middle east. How will this unilateral action help to advance the best shot that we have at achieving a two-state solution, which is the expansion of the Abraham accords and Saudi normalisation, through which we could also calibrate our actions? As for the question of the middle east more broadly, the appalling behaviour of the Iranian regime has gone on for too long, and the regime has brought the initiation of the snapback process on itself. The Iranian people deserve much better. Tehran must never obtain a nuclear weapon, and Conservatives remain clear about the fact that the recent US strikes were necessary. Can the Foreign Secretary tell us whether he believes that Iran has the capability and the intention of recommencing its nuclear programme, and whether his assumption is that the snapback process will be seen through to completion? Can he tell us whether or not he welcomes Israel’s actions regarding the Houthi leadership in Yemen, and can he update the House on how the UK will use this moment to further degrade the Houthis’ ability to carry out the attacks and strikes that we have seen recently?

• 21 Jul 2025 · Middle East · Hansard source

  More

  I am grateful to the Foreign Secretary for advance sight of his statement. The violence, loss of life and conflicts that continue in the middle east shock us all. Events in the middle east have a direct impact on our national interests and on people living on our own country, from concerns about family members in the region to demonstrations on our streets, and from the threats from Iran to the rise of antisemitism. We on the Opposition side of the House are clear that we want to see an end to the conflict in Gaza. We want to see the return of the hostages. The humanitarian support, which is so desperately needed, must get in. There must be an end to the terror inflicted by Hamas and Iran. However, the reality of peace and a sustainable end to the conflict in Gaza seems to be drifting further away. What is Britain’s role when it comes to workable outcomes and practical solutions to advance an end to this conflict, and what diplomatic action is being taken with regional allies and the United States? Where is Britain’s voice and action when it comes to putting new pressure on Hamas to agree to the most recent US proposals to secure a ceasefire, and release the hostages who have been in cruel captivity for more than 650 days? As for the statement that the Foreign Secretary signed earlier today, can he explain what an “unconditional and permanent” ceasefire means for Hamas and the Palestinian Authority? Last week, I met Keith and Aviva Siegel, and heard about their harrowing experience of being held in brutal captivity by Hamas. I pay tribute to them for their incredible bravery and resilience, and for their dedication to securing the freedom of the remaining hostages, from Gali and Ziv Berman to Matan Angrest and Omri Miran, and all those being held in barbaric captivity. They must be returned to their loved ones. The hostages are being denied humanitarian access by Hamas. What are the Government doing about that, and when was the Foreign Secretary’s last intervention on the issue? The situation relating to aid for Gaza has deteriorated beyond all rational comprehension. The daily reports of casualties seeking aid are appalling, and we utterly condemn these attacks. But our words and political statements of condemnation are not saving lives, so what practical solutions, proposals and options have the Foreign Secretary and the British Government discussed with Israel in respect of aid supplies into Gaza? What dialogue is there to find agreement on the opening of access for that aid that goes beyond the current dangerous approach? I remind the House that the last Conservative Government, through Lord Cameron, secured new aid routes and better aid access to save lives. Surely the desperate urgency of the situation, which we all see, calls for such options to be considered once again. I reiterate our long-standing position that settlements are not helpful to achieving long-term peace. Israel should not take steps that could make a two-state solution more difficult, and must use its legal system to clamp down on settler violence. We want a two-state solution that guarantees security and stability for both Israelis and Palestinians, and I am sure the Foreign Secretary agrees that it should come only at a time that is conducive to peace and cannot be the start of a peace process—certainly not while Israeli hostages are still in captivity in Gaza. Does he agree that there needs to be a clear plan and international measures to see the exit of Hamas from Gaza? As for Syria, the barbaric violence that we have witnessed in recent days cannot continue. All groups and minorities in Syria must be protected. The Foreign Secretary mentioned his recent discussions with the transitional Syrian leadership. Did he convey to those in charge that they have a responsibility to end the armed conflict in their country and guarantee the protection of all minority groups in Syria, before the international community removes sanctions and normalises diplomatic relationships? What assurances has he received from the transitional Government, and have those commitments been met in any way with measurable action? Will he update the House on whether any of the £64.5 million dedicated to Syria that was announced by the Government earlier this month will be used to deal with the aftermath of these latest clashes, and on how it will be spent? Does he deem sufficient action to have been taken by the interim Government on the destruction of chemical weapons? Does he believe that the Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham Government are capable of securing Syria’s borders, and does he intend to change the proscribed status of HTS? What is his assessment of the effect of the sanctions that have already been lifted? Have they had any unintended side effects? Syria’s future still hangs in the balance, and we need to be wholly evidence-led in our approach. The Foreign Secretary did not mention Iran, but we understand from reports that Iran, Britain, France and Germany are due to hold nuclear talks in Istanbul on Friday. What is the purpose of those talks, is he co-ordinating actions with the United States, and what is the content of the deal that he wants to see?

• 7 Jul 2025 · Actions of Iranian Regime: UK Response · Hansard source

  More

  As we mark the 20th anniversary of the London terrorist attacks, the victims, survivors and their families, and the emergency services personnel who responded that day, continue to be in our thoughts. Two weeks have passed since the US airstrikes against Iran’s nuclear facilities. Does the Minister have an assessment of their impact, and what is his response to the Iranian regime now prohibiting co-operation with the International Atomic Energy Agency and its inspectors leaving Iran? Given Tehran’s refusal to co-operate, are the Minister and the Department in discussions with partners about applying snapback sanctions and other measures? Is he concerned that this demonstrates that Iran will continue to pursue its entire nuclear weapons programme? Given the information received through discussions with America, Israel and other intelligence partners, will the Government finally come off the fence about the strikes and agree with the Opposition that they were absolutely necessary? On our interests in the region, can the Minster assure us that he is taking continued steps to bolster the security of our military assets and personnel, and what assessment has he made of Iran’s ballistic missile capabilities and the threats that they may continue to pose to our interests? We agree that Iran can never have a nuclear bomb, but the regime is a fundamental menace in so many other ways. It sponsors terrorism across the middle east, and threatens our own country with sophisticated plots. What work is taking place across Government to respond to the threats posed to dissidents in the UK, and to those with family members in Iran who face persecution as the Iranian regime seeks to threaten and blackmail them? What more will the Minister do to take down the finance structures propping up the regime’s destabilising activities, and to stand with the brave people of Iran, including human rights defenders, who face the most barbaric oppression? With the Iranian regime and its terrorist proxies in a weakened state due to Israel and America’s actions, does he agree that this is a moment for the Government to publish a serious strategy to roll back the regime’s malign influence? Finally, can the Minister give an update on the discussions he has had with partners about the US-led plans for a ceasefire in Gaza, freeing the hostages, aid access and securing the removal of Hamas?