Priti Patel MP: speeches 2025

Speeches

• 20 Mar 2025 · Conflict in Gaza · Hansard source

  More

  On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker.

• 20 Mar 2025 · Conflict in Gaza · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Foreign Secretary for advance sight of his statement. We all mourned the loss of innocent lives in this appalling conflict. The death of the UN aid worker and the injury to a British national are tragic, and our sympathies and thoughts are with their families. Will the Foreign Secretary provide an update on the direct engagement that he has had with key interlocutors in the region to ascertain the facts of what happened? Has he been updated by the Government of Israel on their investigation? The onward transition at the end of phase 1 of the ceasefire agreement was always going to be challenging. This is a difficult and fragile moment for the middle east, but several basic truths remain unchanged, including the urgent need to return to their loved ones the 59 hostages captured by Hamas terrorists during the atrocities of 7 October. That is vital for achieving a sustainable end to this horrendous conflict. The incredibly brave families of those held hostage remain firmly in our thoughts, and we should be very clear that the onus is squarely on Hamas. Hamas could agree to release these hostages now and avert any escalation. This is the moment for the UK Government to show leadership with the international community and exert maximum pressure on Hamas to release these hostages. We should all fully understand who we are dealing with here: a brutal Iranian-backed terrorist organisation that seeks the destruction of the world’s only Jewish state, uses its own defenceless people as human shields and has ruthlessly eradicated fundamental freedoms in Gaza. Anyone who has read the shocking report from Lord Roberts on 7 October, commissioned by the all-party parliamentary group on UK-Israel, will have seen the harrowing details of the real-life consequences of Hamas’s total disdain for human dignity, utter disregard for human life, visceral antisemitism and murderous intentions: their organised brutality, murder, rape and torture, indiscriminately targeting babies, children, women and the elderly. As the Prime Minister himself once said, Hamas bear responsibility. Is that still the Prime Minister’s and the Government’s position? It is abundantly clear that Iranian-backed Hamas can have no role in the future of Gaza, and we have raised this many times in the House. What exactly are the British Government doing at this moment in time to bear down on Hamas and work with partners to put an end to this brutal regime? What assessment has the Foreign Secretary made of the capabilities of Hamas and the ongoing threat that the terrorists pose to peace and stability in the region? Do the Government support the US proposal for securing the release of hostages? What is his vision of the next steps? Does he believe that phase 2 of the ceasefire remains within reach, or is he considering alternative solutions? There is too much at stake for Britain to be a bystander. We must be a proactive player with involvement. The Foreign Secretary mentioned his talks with France and Germany, but what discussions is he having with Egypt and other regional partners? We need Israel to continue seeing the UK as a trusted partner. The strength of Britain’s relationship with Israel also matters for our wider influence in the middle east. If we undermine our relationship and influence with Israel, we also lose influence across the middle east. Careless comments do not help, including the Foreign Secretary’s remarks in this House on Monday, for which he has been rebuked by the Prime Minister. Will he apologise to the House and to Israel? The Foreign Secretary’s focus should be on securing the release of the 59 remaining hostages, and this House should be united in that. Those hostages have been held by Hamas since the atrocities of 7 October, and their release is important for a sustainable end to this conflict. Let us be clear: Hamas have no respect for international law, human life or human rights. Does the Foreign Secretary agree that we must be unequivocal that there is no moral equivalence between Hamas and the democratically elected Government of Israel? We must have no more poorly judged decisions on arms exports designed to placate Government Back Benchers. On the question of aid to Gaza— [ Interruption. ] On the question of aid to Gaza, which Government Back Benchers would perhaps like to take seriously, I have said from the Dispatch Box that we expect detail about the Government’s practical response on the ground. How are the Government working to unblock the situation, and what is happening to British aid that is already in the region or en route? What discussions has the Foreign Secretary had with Israeli counterparts in recent days? What is his assessment of the reports of Hamas stockpiling aid and the impact this has on distribution to civilians in need? Has he held discussions recently with the Red Cross on its important work on hostage release and aid delivery? Could we be doing more to support the work of the International Committee of the Red Cross? On the region more broadly, as the parliamentary commission report makes crystal clear, we cannot ignore the role of the regime in Tehran, which has its fingerprints over so much of the inhumane suffering and bloodshed that we see today. We need action to deter Iran’s malign agenda, so what options are on the table for tackling Iran and the flow of weapons and support to its terrorist proxy? What hard power options is the Foreign Secretary considering in respect of the Houthis? I did not receive an answer to that in the House on Monday. I also asked the Foreign Secretary on Monday whether Britain is in lockstep with the United States, but he did not answer that. Now is the time for him to provide clarity and clear answers.

• 17 Mar 2025 · G7 · Hansard source

  More

  I am grateful to the Foreign Secretary for advance sight of his statement. In the light of the vast global challenges that we are all witnessing, there is much ground to cover in this statement. First, we continue to support Ukraine in this fight, and to support the freedoms and values it is defending —democracy, liberty, and the rule of law. It is very welcome that US military aid and intelligence sharing has resumed, and it is vital that the US and Ukraine continue to work together in the face of this appalling conflict. What discussions did the Foreign Secretary hold with US counterparts about the impact of the suspension of intelligence and military support, and what is his assessment of its consequences? While we await further details of the proposed 30-day ceasefire, Russia’s response shows exactly why the Euro-Atlantic community must be resolute in the face of Putin’s aggression, and that Putin will seek to pursue long-held strategic objectives that he has not achieved on the battlefield through hypothetical negotiations. That means that we must be robust: Britain must apply maximum pressure on the Kremlin, boost defence production, and maintain our support for Ukraine’s battlefield efforts. We must also use our convening role to work with allies who have other types of equipment that could plug capability gaps and to broker extra support packages. In the G7 Foreign Ministers’ statement, there is a commitment to use “extraordinary revenues stemming from immobilized Russian Sovereign Assets”. Can the Foreign Secretary confirm whether this means that the UK will go further than the £2.26 billion loan already announced off the back of the profits from sanctioned assets, and can he give an update on when proceeds from the sale of Chelsea football club will be in the hands of those most in need? Over the weekend, we heard the Prime Minister say that his planning for his potential peacekeeping initiative is now moving into an “operational phase”. Is the Foreign Secretary able to explain what this means in practice, especially for our armed forces? What planning is under way? What will our contribution to peacekeeping consist of? Over what timeframe would deployment be launched, and how will our armed forces be supported? Which allies in this coalition of the willing have expressed interest, what will they offer, and what discussions are under way with the US on deterrence and security guarantees to ensure that an invasion like this can never happen again? Turning to the middle east, we are absolutely united on the position that the Iran-backed terrorists Hamas can have no role in Gaza’s future, but what have the Government done to pursue an end to that brutal regime, and what discussions has the Foreign Secretary held with middle eastern counterparts on their proposed plan for the future of Gaza? Now is the time for maximum pressure on Hamas from the international community. They must release every single hostage. Is the UK directly involved in discussions to drive action in a positive direction? On Syria, was there discussion about the ongoing status of Hayat Tahrir al-Sham as a proscribed terrorist group? Following the Government’s lifting of 24 sanctions on entities linked to the deposed Assad regime, does the recent violence change the Government’s assessment of the merits of lifting these kinds of sanctions? We understand from the BBC that the UK did not directly participate in the US airstrikes on Houthi targets at the weekend, but that our armed forces provided routine refuelling support to the US. Can the Foreign Secretary share with the House what the precise nature of the UK support was, particularly given that the UK conducted multiple joint airstrikes with the US last year against Houthi militant targets to degrade their ability to threaten freedom of navigation? Can he explain why on this occasion it was decided that we would not deploy our own strike capabilities? Does he assess that there has been an increase in threats to freedom of navigation in the Red sea and to British vessels and personnel? If so, what is the Government’s overall approach to this threat and to the Houthis? Are hard power options still on the table, as they were last year? Will the Government ramp up sanctions and pressure on the Houthis and importantly on Iran, the malign force in the region that continues to back them? What steps are the Government taking to interdict weapons flowing from Iran to the Houthis? What discussions has the Foreign Secretary had with his American counterparts on the US approach to Iran more broadly, and where does the UK fit into that? The G7 statement also made reference to the range of challenges posed by China. Our key partners are alert to the threat China poses, but this Government seem oblivious to it. As China threatens global security and our national interests and puts bounties on the heads of Hongkongers living here, we have seen the Energy Secretary following the kowtowing of the Chancellor and the Foreign Secretary to the Chinese Communist party, and the Foreign Secretary and the Home Secretary, who are responsible for national security, are now the cheerleaders for the Chinese super-embassy planning application. Will the Foreign Secretary disclose in full all contacts and communications between his Department, Downing Street, the Chinese authority and the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government about this matter? Does he recognise the anxiety that this planning application is causing to the groups threatened by China? Will he accept that the threats and risks mean that China must join Iran on the enhanced tiers of the foreign influence registration scheme? Finally, was the Chagos surrender deal discussed with the Foreign Secretary’s US counterparts? Will he commit to present a draft treaty to the House before it is signed? How can he justify handing over billions of pounds of British taxpayers’ money to Mauritius, instead of defending our sovereignty?

• 10 Mar 2025 · Syria · Hansard source

  More

  I am grateful to the Minister for advance sight of his statement. This is the first statement on Syria offered by the Government this year, and frankly, it could not have come soon enough. It is deeply alarming that, in recent days, we have been witness to some of the deadliest violence in Syria since the beginning of this dreadful conflict. The Opposition have been raising questions, written and oral, about the Government’s approach to Syria throughout the year, so it is with some disappointment that we have had to wait this long—and, to be quite frank, for these events—for a Minister to give an update. Reports that hundreds of civilians have been killed in clashes, including Alawite civilians, is troubling. The Syrian people have suffered 14 years of conflict and decades of oppression. The country is now at a fork in the road, but these terrible events are a stark reminder that a better future for the people of Syria—for all groups and all minorities—is far from guaranteed. We should be clear that those who have ratcheted up the appalling situation in recent days should pull back from the brink, not jeopardise that better future. The Labour Government have decided to establish contact with Hayat Tahrir al-Sham and the interim Administration in Syria, so can the Minister confirm whether the Foreign Office has raised this escalation in violence with interlocutors, and if so, whether the Government have clearly conveyed a set of expectations for how the temperature should be taken down and stability restored? Can he also confirm whether there has been any direct engagement between Ministers and HTS leaders at any point, and what is his assessment of HTS’s response to this violence and the threat posed by remnants of the disgraceful Assad regime? We note that the Government have announced they are lifting 24 sanctions on entities linked to the deposed Assad regime. Does the violence of recent days change the Government’s assessment of the merits of lifting such sanctions? Before the Minister lifted those particular sanctions, did he consult US and European allies as well as partners in the region? Were the sanctions lifted at the request of HTS, and are there plans to lift further sanctions? Can the Minister also be clear with the House about precisely what conditions, criteria and evidence are being used to drive these decisions? On the Minister’s visit to Turkey last week, he said the UK is committed to working in partnership with Turkey “to support Syria’s transition to an inclusive and peaceful country”, but what exactly does that mean in practice, and what does he see as Turkey’s role? On security issues specifically, can he confirm that there remains no change to the Conservative Government’s very firm position on foreign fighters—that they must not come back to the UK? What is his assessment of the Syrian state’s ability to counter any ISIS cells in the east of the country, and has he seen any progress on securing borders in the region and the prevention of smuggling people, drugs and weapons? The Government are right that Assad’s chemical weapons stockpiles need to be secured and destroyed, and that needs to be verified by the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons. However, is the Minister confident these weapons will indeed be destroyed? We acknowledge that the Government have put more funding into the OPCW’s Syria missions following the fall of Assad’s regime, but we still need Syria to meet its obligations under the chemical weapons convention in full. We need concrete actions as well as words. Turning to the humanitarian situation, where does the Minister judge the need is most acute, and how is he mobilising UK aid to ensure that it is safely distributed and is genuinely reaching those innocent civilians in need? With the reduction of official development assistance to 0.3%, can the Minister confirm that Syria will continue to be a priority and that funds will be made available, given the security and strategic issues? Finally, on the transition to representative and inclusive governance, we note the launching of the non-binding national dialogue conference by the interim Government of Syria, but does the Minister believe that this process will yield the kind of results we all want for the people of Syria, and has he discussed this through the channels he has established with the interim Government?

• 5 Mar 2025 · Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office · Hansard source

  More

  I begin my remarks by paying tribute to the many speakers in the debate, and in particular the Chair of the International Development Committee, the hon. Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion), who has been a long-standing advocate for development aid. I have had the great privilege of working with her, and I thoroughly understand her commitment. I will pay tribute to a few other colleagues. My right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell) has been a long-standing, dedicated and passionate advocate not just for 0.7%, but for the effective use of that funding, and for working with the private sector, which he and I have both had the enormous privilege of doing. I also pay tribute to the right hon. Member for Oxford East (Anneliese Dodds) for her commitment. I have had the privilege of working with her as well, and during her time in government she was professional and committed to her brief. Of course, last week the Government sent her here to defend Labour’s indefensible Chagos surrender deal, which uses money transferred from the aid budget to defence to pay for the lease of a site that we have sovereignty over.

• 5 Mar 2025 · Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office · Hansard source

  More

  I will not give way as we are very short on time. I hope that the hon. Member will respect that. The threats that we and our allies face necessitated that decision, and there is consensus across our respective Front Benches on that. Importantly, it shows our enemies and adversaries that we as a country are serious about dealing with the malign influences and challenges we face. The Minister knows the implications, but we must always look to increase our defence spending and resources. We will work collectively on that. We all recognise, as I think the debate has shown, that many of the decisions on ODA are difficult. There are strong views in this House on the choices that have been made, including among those on the Opposition Benches. My hon. Friend the Member for Chester South and Eddisbury (Aphra Brandreth) pointed out some of the choices. My right hon. Friend the Member for Maldon (Sir John Whittingdale) spoke about how we must still champion media freedoms, about some of the real pressures that exist and about the key values that we will stand up for. As a former Secretary of State for International Development—I have been there and I understand— I know the benefits and the impact of UK aid: how we stand strong in the world, the use of soft power and the way in which we save lives. Whether that is through the Global Fund or Gavi, we know those funds very well. We have been a huge supporter of them, and Britain has saved and changed lives around the world. We are all proud of that; there is no question. These points have been made already, but I ask the Minister: where will the Government take the lead—on which development programmes in particular? We know about Sudan—the Prime Minister has referred to that—but there are so many other areas of conflict in the world. They include Yemen, and I am afraid to say that I have not heard Yemen mentioned in this House for too long. Where will we be on the replenishment of Gavi and the Global Fund? I know Ministers will say that they will wait until the spending review, but given that ODA spending will still be pegged to a proportion of GNI, will the Minister give a commitment on the potential for published plans? We want to know more about the split of ODA between Government Departments. Home Office spending of ODA on asylum has already been raised several times, and I know that the Minister will want to speak about that. We also want to know more about the integrated security fund and the decisions and choices that will be made on that. What clarity can be given? Similarly, CDC was mentioned. Can there also be clarity on its role and that of British International Investment, and some of the opportunities that exist there? I want to briefly touch on Ukraine, and some other areas too. It is quite clear that we stand shoulder to shoulder with Ukraine. The Ukrainians’ fight is our fight. They are on the frontline protecting the very principles that underpin our way of life: sovereignty, democracy and the rule of law. Can the Minister say, particularly with the forthcoming changes in defence spending, whether the Government will turbocharge the work following the summit the Prime Minister led at the weekend? Importantly, the Americans have already spoken about pausing military aid and intelligence sharing. What work will we do now to make sure that that does not happen in the headline ways that we have heard? How will we respond to that? Are we having constructive dialogue with our friends in the US Administration to safeguard key intelligence and security assets? This is a defining moment. I want to touch on the middle east as well, and particularly on some of the discussions we had in the urgent question yesterday on Gaza and the ceasefire. We must ensure that we always stand strong when it comes to standing up for the hostages. New discussions have taken place in Cairo. When plans are forthcoming, what role will we play as a country in some of those areas? I must raise the issue of Iran. Our diplomatic and security efforts obviously have to ensure that we address that malign influence. I welcome the Government’s actions, which were undertaken yesterday, on the enhanced tier of the foreign influence registration scheme. However, I want to press Ministers to go further and have a consistent and serious approach to security and defence across Government, because this is a whole of Government effort now. We have heard day after day in this House about the threats posed by Russia, Iran and China, which continue to cast a dark shadow over freedom, democracy and our national interests. We have to stop going cap in hand to China. We have to do much more, and I hope the Minister will reflect upon what I consider to be the Government’s reckless approach in kowtowing to China. What will we do to ensure that the vacuum that will now be created in some parts of the world will not be filled by China? How will we stand up to it? Finally, it is pretty clear that we live in an increasingly dangerous and uncertain world. The threats are increasing and growing. The Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office has one of the world’s greatest privileges, which is to stand up and look after our security, defence and freedom using soft power and all its levers. We urge Ministers, within the scope that they have now, to tackle the real threats and challenges that we all face globally, while also giving voice and representation to many of the issues that colleagues have spoken about today in the House.

• 5 Mar 2025 · Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office · Hansard source

  More

  I will not give way because I do not have time. To spare the blushes of the Minister, I will not relitigate the debate. I am glad that he is in his place because there is a lot to cover. He will speak passionately about development aid and assistance because of his background and experience. I would like to ask him a question about the British Indian Ocean Territory and which budgets the lease costs will come from. Will it be from the FCO, defence or ODA budgets? We still need an explanation of that. I thank the Minister, because before the debate started I received a flurry of answers to some of the questions I have been posing on this issue. However, just for the record, I still do not have clarification, so there will be more. I want to speak about defence spending and ODA. The Government were right to follow our calls to redirect some ODA funds to support the defence budget at this critical time.

• 4 Mar 2025 · Gaza · Hansard source

  More

  As recent days have shown, the ceasefire continues to be incredibly fragile. Of course, we all want this agreement to hold, and none of us should be in any doubt that that hinges on the release of each and every hostage held by the Iranian-backed terrorists Hamas, who caused the conflict by their sickening acts on 7 October. As the Minister has pointed out, those hostages and their families have now suffered unimaginably for more than 500 days, and that cannot go on. The hostages have been held in barbaric conditions, and the world has been shocked by the distressing scenes involving those who have been released. The Minister rightly referred to Emily Damari and others. Emily has shared details of her really awful ordeal in captivity by Hamas. We all wish her well in her medical appointments and in the treatment that she is receiving. Last week, we also tragically saw the distressing return of the bodies of those killed in Hamas captivity. Our hearts break for their loved ones, and we mourn with them and with the people of Israel. I have a series of questions for the Minister. First, what role is the UK playing in helping to get an agreement on phase 2 of this ceasefire over the line? What discussions has the Foreign Secretary had with America, Israel, and other regional players in recent days? What engagement have the Government had with the plans for the future of Gaza that are being discussed in Cairo, and on how to prevent Hamas from continuing to control the Gaza strip? Secondly, what is the Government’s practical response on aid access? How are they working to unblock this situation, and what is happening to the British aid that is already in the region or en route? Finally, what recent conversations have Foreign Office Ministers had with the International Committee of the Red Cross, both on its efforts on hostage release and on humanitarian assistance more broadly?

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

  More

  I thank my hon. Friend for that essential question, which remains unanswered. At the end of the day, the Government must be clear about which budget that money is coming from, because we need to know. We do not even know the sums, but this is taxpayer’s money. How can any Government justify those extraordinary sums?

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

  More

  My hon. Friend is absolutely right. This is a critical time for our two countries when it comes to both our place and our standing in the world. All we have seen from this Government is an epic failure in diplomacy, and concession after concession. The Labour Government have shown themselves to be weak. Not only have they undermined our strategic defence interests and our very close relationship with our dear ally, but they are putting our territories at risk and wasting taxpayers’ money. We need a Government who stand tall in the world and who fly the Union flag with pride rather than the white flag of surrender. The deal is an epic failure in diplomacy and it is causing our standing in the world to fall. The House must vote for our motion to defend our national interests and Britain’s standing in the world.

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

  More

  If I may caveat my remarks, unlike those unqualified, pretend lawyers—not even actual lawyers—Conservative Members believe that decisions over the future of key strategic military assets cannot be taken on advisory opinions issued and by motions agreed in international organisations, especially when such votes have been cast against us by nations, and indeed judges, who may pose a threat to us and have their own interests. Britain is a global power, and we face global threats. The base of Diego Garcia is one of the most important strategic and military assets in the Indo-Pacific for us and for our US partners. If our sovereignty over the base and the Chagos islands is lost, diluted or compromised, we are weaker, and our rivals, competitors and enemies grow stronger.

• 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?