Priti Patel
MP for Witham · Conservative · United Kingdom
“Since the Secretary of State first announced these plans, when she last held this role, the Labour Government have played fast and loose with our local democracy, cancelling elections and creating chaos and uncertainty in our councils as they struggle to deliver key frontline services.”
“The Secretary of State has doubled housing targets for Maldon district, causing it to fall behind on its five-year supply; that is putting green spaces at risk in villages such as Tollesbury.”
“As I said this morning in the urgent question, this despotic terrorist regime, which has been illegally attacking commercial shipping in the strait and our allies, including Bahrain, Kuwait and Oman’s ships and territory, all while repressing its own people in the most brutal ways imaginable, must be made to feel the consequences of its a…”
“By the end of this decade, Britain will be nowhere near the 3% and barely ahead of where we are now, while all our allies continue to surge. I do not need to remind the Foreign Secretary of the numbers, but Germany is set to spend 3.7% of GDP by 2030, while Sweden has pledged to reach 3.5%, as have other countries.”
“Our security allies once looked to the UK to be a reliable and dependable partner, but their confidence is increasingly shaken. How will the Government put that right? This is a time for action, not words.”
“What will be the scale of the deployment? What will it consist of and over what timeframe? How will we reassure our strategic and security partners in the region of our commitment, so that they do not think we have stepped back, particularly given the rising tide of attacks from Iran?”
The complete record
Every one of 4,532 lines we hold for Priti Patel, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 11 of 91.
“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?”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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?”
“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.”
“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.”
“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—”
“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.”
“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?”
“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?”
“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?”
“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?”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“The Mauritius Prime Minister said last month that his Attorney General met the Minister and the UK Attorney General. Will the Minister confirm what was discussed? Importantly, may I ask again: if the Government think this is such a good deal, does he stand by that and will he defend our interests?”
“If the Minister is frontloading payments, what other services will be cut here in the United Kingdom in the immediate term to make room and pay for the deal? When Labour is imposing taxes on education, family farms and businesses, and has cut winter fuel payments for vulnerable pensioners, how can this eye-watering amount of money be justified to lease back a territory for which—guess what—we already own the freehold? Will the Minister also say whether he will have to make defence cuts to absorb this enormous cost? Should the Ministry of Defence be shouldering the costs? What budget will it come from? Will the Government count the payments towards the 2.5% defence target? On the sovereignty of bases, does the deal pose a new precedent for other bases, such as Cyprus?”
“The Prime Minister of Mauritius gave his Parliament a detailed account, and even a chronology, of the deal and the negotiations that led to it—details that Labour repeatedly refused to disclose to this House and which the Prime Minister of Mauritius set out in no uncertain terms so that nobody should be in any doubt. This weak, hapless Government have backed down and the House deserves answers today. Has the Minister given away our ability to unilaterally extend the period over which the UK can exercise sovereign rights on Diego Garcia? The Mauritius Prime Minister says he has. Has the Minister given away our ability to exercise sovereign rights over Diego Garcia entirely? If so, what is the cost? Is it £9 billion? Is it £18 billion? Is it to be inflation-proofed, as the Mauritian Prime Minister stated in Parliament yesterday?”
“Let us be clear: Labour’s disastrous deal is one of the worst foreign policy failures in modern British history. Labour is surrendering an absolutely critical strategic defence asset that we operate together with our closest security partner—now we are told we will have to pay billions for the privilege of doing so. When Labour negotiates, Britain loses, and loses big time. While this House has been kept in the dark on the details, our counterparts in Mauritius have not. They had a robust debate in Parliament, which many of us watched on YouTube. It was just extraordinary.”
“Could the Minister speak about the efforts this Government are making to work with the international community on a robust strategy towards the Iranian regime?”
“On the future governance of Gaza, I have said that I would like to hear more about the Government’s day one plan. The Foreign Secretary previously told the House: “There cannot be a role for Hamas.” —[ Official Report , 16 January 2025; Vol. 760, c. 516.] I echo those words, but the sickening sight of Hamas gunmen parading around hostages just last weekend caused great alarm. What steps are being taken to end the reign of terror that Hamas have unleashed? The Minister mentioned the Palestinian Authority. If they are to assume responsibility in Gaza, what action will be taken to ensure that they are reforming? They must make serious, measurable and tangible reforms on education, welfare policy and democracy. Finally, everyone in the House knows that the root cause of so much suffering in the middle east is Tehran and the Iranian regime.”
“In July, the Foreign Secretary announced £21 million for UNRWA, and the Prime Minister announced £13 million last month. What measures are in place to ensure that every penny of British taxpayers’ money is going to those most in need and not being abused by Hamas? Without losing focus on the challenges of the immediate term and phase 1 of the ceasefire, the Government also need to be thinking about what comes next and laying the right foundations for the reconstruction and development that needs to take place in Gaza. This is a huge task. What discussions have the Government had with regional neighbours? What role does the Minister envisage for the UK? Will Britain be contributing financially? Is she pushing for multilateral institutions to be involved?”
“While no one can doubt the size of its distribution network, we cannot ignore the problems within the organisation. It is in no one’s interests to pretend that they have not happened. We know the facts: UNRWA staff and institutions have been infiltrated by Hamas, and there have been shocking allegations of UNRWA staff involvement in the 7 October attacks. Following the United Nations’ internal investigations and the subsequent sackings, the Colonna report and reforms need to be implemented in full. Is the Minister overseeing that in order to give our public, as well as donor countries, more confidence in UNRWA and the efficacy of its progress on the vetting of its personnel, and on procedures to protect the neutrality of its operations and facilities? Will she share with the House the evidence of the work that has taken place?”
“We all saw on our television screens yesterday the scenes of thousands of Gazans returning to the north, where, as we recognise, the situation is extremely difficult. Can the Minister give a breakdown of the volume and type of aid that the UK is sending, and how its impact will be measured? Notwithstanding the deliveries by helicopter that she mentioned, is she confident that British aid is getting over the land borders as expected, and is being effectively distributed to help those in need? As for the £17 million that she mentioned, can she clarify whether it is new money or part of money that has been released from previous funding allocations? Can she also tell us which organisations the money will support? The Minister rightly referred to UNRWA.”
“We did, very sadly, learn yesterday that eight hostages would not be returning home alive, having been killed at the hands of Hamas. That was devastating news for hostage families who continue to face unbearable uncertainty in the days and weeks ahead. There is a long road ahead, and—as we have already heard from the Minister—we want the ceasefire agreement to hold, but we stress that every single hostage must be released. The important issue of humanitarian access remains, and, as the Minister has said, we must ensure that the House receives relevant updates both on the hostage releases and on every single diplomatic tool that Britain has when it comes to removing the barriers to getting the hostages out and also getting the right amount of aid in.”
“Since the savage terrorist attacks of 7 October 2023, all of us in this House have called for the release of all hostages held by Hamas as the only way of reaching a sustainable end to this abhorrent conflict, and to alleviate the enormous scale of the humanitarian suffering. We now feel both the anxiety and the hope of the families who have waited, anticipating the release of the remarkably brave women hostages who have been returned thus far under the ceasefire agreement, including, of course, the British-Israeli hostage Emily Damari. I pay tribute to the families of all the hostages for their unwavering campaigns to secure the release of their loved ones. They should never have been put through this unimaginable nightmare.”
“He mentioned the matter not just in this statement, but in his previous written statements. Will further comprehensive action be taken to target those miserable, vile and evil criminal gangs? What more will the Government do to put this whole issue to an end and ensure that this destruction and displacement across these two countries comes to an end?”
“Will the Foreign Secretary share his latest assessment of the state of the border crossing in Sudan? How much aid is getting through each day and from which crossing points? When the aid gets inside Sudan, are the safeguards there to ensure that it gets to the people who need it, and does he have the mechanisms in place to measure the impact? On the subject of aid, this might be premature, but will the Foreign Secretary speak about the Government’s plans for the future of aid funding given the forthcoming spending review? While this dreadful war persists, what is he doing to increase efforts to collect evidence of the crimes committed so that those responsible can be held accountable and face justice? The Foreign Secretary has spoken in recent days about the vile people smuggling gangs.”
“Did he discuss the matter in his call with Secretary Rubio, because Sudan was not in the read-out and was not referenced at all? Will he speak more about the United Nations reform that he has just touched on? The US Administration are also reviewing all their aid programmes, so was that discussed in his call with Secretary Rubio? Beyond sanctions, is he working to identify other hard-hitting ways to put pressure on the leadership of the RSF and the SAF and those supporting those awful war machines? While the conflict continues to rage, we need a laser-like focus on the humanitarian assistance, and I do not just mean on the type or volume—important, though, that is. If British aid is being sent and is getting through, we must ensure that it gets over the border and is distributed to the people it is intended to help.”