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 3 of 91.
“As well as supporting women and girls affected by sexual violence and the stigma attached to children born from rape, is the Foreign Secretary working to help male victims, where there is also stigma that prevents them coming forward? More broadly, can she update us on the volume of British aid that has managed to get over the border since the escalation of this awful conflict towards the end of last year? What information has she received about what aid is getting through, and whether it is getting into the right hands? The war in Sudan is a stain on the world’s conscience, and Britain must exert every ounce of its influence and leverage to get the warring parties to lay down their weapons immediately and to secure a lasting peace.”
“We all back the sanctions announced in December, but we need stronger action with robust consequences that deter the entities, individuals and businesses whose support continues to sustain this awful war. Will the Foreign Secretary update the House on how the UK is using international courts to pursue those responsible for these atrocities being committed, and to gather evidence? We note the £20 million of humanitarian funding announced by the Government for women and girls, so will she confirm whether that is drawn from money already pledged, or whether it is additional new funding? Which organisations are providing the programmes funded by that money, and what are the mechanisms for how the support service will work?”
“US-led peace efforts are reportedly building momentum, with a text being prepared of a plan to try to stop the fighting. Has she seen and inputted into that text, and what are her views on it? Has she set parameters to decide whether the proposals are the right ones, and has she spoken to other Sudan Quad countries about it? If acceptable, what pressures will be put on the warring parties to agree it? What is her assessment of any progress made since the statement at last April’s Sudan conference in London, and who will participate in the conference in Germany? We welcome the new sanctions of the RSF and the SAF, but can we expect further action against the leaders of those barbaric groups, their key operators and enforcers, who were all responsible for administering vile brutality on innocent people in different parts of the country?”
“To her knowledge, did he at any stage mislead our US ally on national security and foreign affairs on key decisions such as Chagos, which impact our security partnership? This morning I am sure the Foreign Secretary will have seen reports that Secretary Rubio warned the Labour Government over the appointment of Lord Mandelson. Can she confirm whether she or her predecessor were aware of that? The UK’s credibility has been damaged by the Prime Minister and her Government’s appalling judgment. That is why answers are needed. This week, the UK assumed the presidency of the UN Security Council. Will the Foreign Secretary tell the House how we will use that position rightly to advance efforts to negotiate to end this conflict?”
“I must ask the Foreign Secretary, however, how she can come to the House to talk about such barbaric sexual violence against women and girls, when the Prime Minister knowingly let his friend, Peter Mandelson, a friend of one of the world’s most notorious paedophiles, into the heart of Government and her Department. Is she not ashamed and concerned that our country’s credibility and record on this issue has been damaged because of the Government’s poor judgment, and the Prime Minister’s judgment in appointing Mandelson, knowing his links to Epstein? With Mandelson putting his interests first, has she assessed the damage that his actions have caused to the UK’s international and reputational interests, including our essential work to address the situation in Sudan?”
“The situation in Sudan is serious and deadly, and Members across the Chamber want this awful, barbaric war to end. Millions are suffering, displaced and malnourished, and an estimated 150,000 people have been killed, including in massacres such as El Fasher. War crimes are being committed, and appalling acts of sexual violence are being perpetrated against women and girls. UK leadership is needed to make a difference to the humanitarian situation on the ground, and to support every international diplomatic effort to end this awful and deadly conflict.”
“(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for the Foreign, Development and Commonwealth Office if she will make a statement regarding the situation on Iran.”
“Is the UK involved in any contacts between the US and Iran? What plans is the Minister making for British assets and the protection of personnel and British nationals in the region should the US decide to strike? Is there a scenario in which the UK might be involved in potential action? How will Ministers ensure that they are at the table, and what planning and co-operation are under way to assess any commercial disruption within the region should action materialise? This is not the time to be silent. Britain must stand up for the Iranian people and confront this vile, despotic regime with strength and resolve.”
“Are the Government tracking the regime’s illegal funding sources to ensure that UK financial systems and institutions are not facilitating or hosting funds that are being used to target Iranian citizens in Britain with hostile attacks? The EU has chosen to proscribe the IRGC. What is the Government’s response? The Jonathan Hall review concluded nearly nine months ago, so when will emergency and essential measures to take action against the IRGC come to Parliament? We cannot wait, and the Conservatives will support emergency legislation. The build-up of US naval and air force assets in the middle east has been well documented and reported, and it has prompted some reported contacts between the US and Iran. Will the Minister say what discussions have been held with the US Government about their intentions?”
“The brutal crackdown on brave Iranians fighting for their basic rights and freedoms continues. The reports are shocking. We have now seen that tens of thousands have been killed and hundreds of thousands injured. Some are even saying that 30,000 people have died. These are warlike casualty rates, yet the condemnation and response are weak. What are the British Government doing, with our allies, to neutralise the regime’s tools of repression? The Government have announced new sanctions—the Minister has spoken about that—but what is being done to crack down on the sanctions evasion that is fuelling the Iranian regime’s repression, including in oil sales and cryptocurrency usage? What steps are being taken to weaken the regime’s terrorist proxies?”
“We will fight to kill this Bill to defend both British sovereignty and Britain’s pride and national interests.”
“Labour’s £35 billion Chagos surrender deal is falling apart every single day. It is high time that the Prime Minister tore up this atrocious surrender treaty and put Britain’s interests, security, and hard-pressed taxpayers first. The Opposition have made that clear from day one, and have taken every opportunity to expose the deceit, falsehoods and foolishness of the approach taken by Labour. Whether it is on arguments of international law, defence and security, self-determination, the importance of the Chagossian people standing up for their rights, or the environment, it is the Conservatives who have been standing up for Britain’s national interests by unequivocally opposing this surrender treaty.”
“I beg to move, That this House is opposed to the United Kingdom ceding sovereignty over the British Indian Ocean Territory; believes that the United Kingdom should not give £34.7 billion to Mauritius when that money could be spent on the armed forces; further believes that the Diego Garcia British Military Base and Indian Ocean Territory Bill breaches the Exchange of notes constituting an agreement concerning the availability for defence purposes of the British Indian Ocean Territory, London, 30 December 1966 with the United States, as does the UK/Mauritius: Agreement concerning the Chagos Archipelago including Diego Garcia, and therefore that the Government should not proceed with the Bill; and also believes that Parliament must approve any changes to the 1966 Exchange of notes through the process set out under the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010.”
“Had the Prime Minister and his dear friend the Attorney General— [ Interruption. ] Perhaps the hon. Member would like to contribute to the debate, and will put her name down to speak. If not, I suggest that she sits and listens. Had the Prime Minister, the Attorney General, and the real Foreign Secretary, Jonathan Powell—along with those who are or were Foreign Secretary in name only—got their way, the Mauritian flag would already be flying over the Chagos archipelago, and hundreds of millions of £35 billion of taxpayers’ money would already be lining the coffers of a foreign Government.”
“My right hon. Friend is absolutely right, and I think it demonstrates their disdain and contempt for the British people, quite frankly. It is pretty obvious that as the Prime Minister and various other Ministers travel the globe, they go around waving the white flag of surrender. [ Interruption. ] Government Members can sit there chuntering, but the British public can see exactly what is going on with them: they are weak, feeble and giving away the public’s money. Had the Prime Minister— [ Interruption. ] The Minister is chuntering about the start of the negotiations, but this deal is on him, the Labour Government, their lefty friends and their international law agreements. [ Interruption. ] Perhaps the Minister would like to listen; he might learn a few things today.”
“My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. Again, it is the Opposition who have been raising the issue that this deal gives succour and strength to Britain’s enemies. All the people who are working against us—China, Russia and Iran—will accelerate their plotting with their Mauritian friends on how to undermine the operationalisation of the military base on Diego Garcia, and on how to exert their influence in the Indo-Pacific at the expense of all our interests.”
“The hon. Member is absolutely right, and he speaks to my fundamental point about capitulation, surrender and the way that the Government have worked against Britain’s interests. We see that night and day, and it is unforgiveable.”
“When we have questioned this in both Houses, Ministers have merely said: “Talks are ongoing to update the UK-US Exchange of Letters”, but the exchange of notes was not even referred to in any of the documents accompanying the legislation. I think this House deserves an explanation. When did the talks begin? What is the status of the talks? What is the timescale for making changes? Have the Americans raised concerns that the exchange of notes were not part of the original discussions with the US Government last year, when the Prime Minister said that the US supported the treaty? Why did the Government try to force through their surrender Bill without confirming the future of the exchange of notes?”
“Yet when the Government signed and published their treaty on 22 May last year, and then published their surrender Bill, there was not a single mention in either the treaty or the Bill of the need for the exchange of notes. On Monday, in response to our urgent question, the Minister for the Overseas Territories, the hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty), said: “we have been clear throughout that before the UK can ratify the treaty, we will need to do the following: pass primary and secondary legislation; update the UK-US agreement—the exchange of notes; and put in place arrangements on the environment, maritime security and migration”, —[ Official Report , 26 January 2026; Vol. 779, c. 599.] but this was not mentioned in any of the documents accompanying the legislation, let alone the treaty.”
“For the avoidance of any doubt in the House or any ignorance on the Government Benches, the 1966 treaty with the USA, which establishes the military base on Diego Garcia, states that the whole of the British Indian Ocean Territory “shall remain under United Kingdom sovereignty.” It goes on: “Subject to the provisions set out below the islands”— all the Chagos islands, not just Diego Garcia— “shall be available to meet the needs of both Governments for defense”. This is a legally binding treaty between the United Kingdom and the United States of America on the British Indian Ocean Territory, and any attempt by the UK to surrender sovereignty over BIOT violates international law.”
“So tell us today, please. We have not only a Government of incompetent politicians, but a Government of incompetent lawyers. In the words of President Trump, Labour is surrendering sovereignty “for no reason whatsoever.” Given this Labour Government’s obsession with international law, it is surprising and shocking that they are not just misinterpreting it, but have overlooked essential detail in the 1966 UK-US exchange of notes. This is now the third time I have brought the exchange of notes to the Dispatch Box in just the last week, Mr Speaker.”
“Instead, we have a weak and feeble Prime Minister, currently on his knees in Beijing, who will do anything possible to push through this deal—a deal that has been constructed and negotiated by his left-wing international lawyer friends, whose views he seems to value much more than the British people and the Chagossian community. We all know how this has gone completely wrong, although the Prime Minister could still take a different course. It has gone wrong because this surrender is completely unnecessary—because, as the Opposition know, it is based on an advisory opinion. Ministers have failed to give a convincing answer as to why we should accept it, and there is no answer on what enforcement mechanisms would exist, other than some hypothetical comments about the electromagnetic spectrum and the International Telecommunication Union.”
“The Opposition have proudly made representations on behalf of the Chagossian people, who have not only been betrayed but are being threatened in Britain. Their families are being intimidated by people associated with the Government of Mauritius, who seem to be learning how to conduct transnational repression from their friends in the Chinese Communist party. This Labour Government will go down in history for many terrible things, but they can now add to that list of shame the repression and betrayal of the Chagossian people. Labour must rethink its deeply corrosive policy, which is putting at risk our security and the safety of the Chagossian people.”
“My right hon. Friend has made his point very clearly. This Government are not standing up for our values or interests. Nor are they making any effort to demonstrate that they are on the side of our national security. Fundamentally, that is what this debate is all about. It is diligent work and scrutiny by Conservatives in this House and the other place that has led to the Government being forced to pause this surrender. That has been achieved by our diligent diplomatic engagement with the US Administration, by asking for over 400 parliamentary debates, by securing two Opposition day debates, and thanks to you Mr Speaker, by asking urgent question after urgent question. We are here to demand answers that they never provide, but only hide, all thanks to their shameful outright contempt for Parliament and the British public.”
“Perhaps the Minister can tell us what exactly the National Security Adviser, Mr Powell, and the former ambassador, Lord Mandelson—remember him?—told the US Administration about the surrender treaty. It is well known that the Government are run by their friends and cronies, and it is also well known that Jonathan Powell, a friend of China, accelerated the negotiations when he was appointed envoy in September 2024. And can anyone in this House really trust anything that Lord Mandelson would have been involved in? That is definitely a question for the Government.”
“Well, this is the perfect debate and opportunity for the Government to answer. Perhaps the Minister would like to intervene right now—I would be very happy for her to answer that question. I have another question for the Minister: have the American Administration questioned why the British Government would want to give up sovereignty of the British Indian Ocean Territory and, in doing so, violate international law? For once, the Minister needs to just be straightforward and give precise answers to the precise questions asked by those on the Opposition Benches, because the Government have continuously failed to do so. British taxpayers, by the way, rightly want an explanation as to why their taxes should line the pockets of the Government of Mauritius without full and proper scrutiny and the disclosure and transparency that they deserve.”
“Instead of showing some humility and transparency and commitment to engage in proper scrutiny, however, Labour has sought to gaslight its critics—and, by the way, the British public—with a Government spokesperson telling the media: “This is irresponsible and reckless behaviour by peers”. Blaming peers—Conservatives, Cross Benchers and others—for doing their job diligently is another new low from a Labour Government seeking to undermine accountability, democracy, scrutiny and accountability. When the junior Minister for the Indo-Pacific responds, I hope she will speak on behalf of this feeble Labour Government and apologise to the British people for their appalling and discredited conduct.”
“There is a new opportunity today for the Minister for the Indo-Pacific, the hon. Member for Feltham and Heston (Seema Malhotra), to tell us: yes or no? On that point, it is also worth asking whether, should there be a change in the proposed US-UK treaty, it will come to Parliament through the 21-day Constitutional Reform and Governance Act process? Again, we asked this question on Monday, and the Minister refused to answer. What are the Government trying to hide? As Labour failed to provide the House with scrutiny under the previous CRaG process, it is clearly happy to give away this sovereign territory and billions in taxpayers’ money without being held to account. Given the Labour Government’s abject failure to clarify these points, it took Conservatives in the other place to take action, leading to this pause of the treaty.”
“As is often the case, the hon. and learned Gentleman is spot on. That is exactly why the Minister has this marvellous opportunity today to explain this to the House and the British public. Let us not forget that President Trump, the commander-in-chief, said that the UK is giving away extremely important land in an “act of great stupidity”—I think the House would agree with that comment—and that: “There is no doubt that China and Russia have noticed this act of total weakness.” Has there been any Minister-to-Minister engagement with the US Administration on this? Had the Prime Minister spoken directly to the President on this matter before kowtowing to China? I asked this very question here on Monday, but the Minister for the Overseas Territories, who is not present, could not answer.”
“It is an absolute disgrace that this House has not had full disclosure on the money. It is in the public interest for Ministers to tell the truth, to be held to account, and to stop hiding the true cost by misrepresenting the positions of the Office for Budget Responsibility and the Government Actuary’s Department. That is utterly shameful. Today, Labour MPs have an opportunity to join us—”
“We have had completely misleading remarks about China and Mauritius, when it is the Opposition who have constantly called out that cosy relationship. I have even brought the Minister some press cuttings, but, as she has responsibility for the Indo-Pacific, she may have seen them already. None the less, I advise her to read the website of the Chinese Foreign Affairs Ministry. It provides a weekly diary of its friendly relationship with the Government of Mauritius. On the Pelindaba treaty, we have already heard the comments about what this now means. It is absolutely wrong to inhibit and restrict our ability when it comes to stationing a nuclear deterrent on Diego Garcia, and it is right that we on the Conservatives Benches continue to question this. Before I conclude, let me discuss the money.”
“I commend my right hon. Friend for his intervention. He has highlighted a lot of things there, which, in the interest of time, I am grateful for, because we have a lot of other colleagues who want to speak. It is worth pointing out that the Government will have a few of their Members who like to climb the greasy pole—there is one, who is not present today, who is now the trade envoy for Mauritius because he spoke up so frequently for the Government. Ultimately, this is about the security and defence of our country. [ Interruption. ] No, no. The Government have a lot of questions to answer, because their feeble remarks in defence of this entire process have been absolutely shameful. That includes on China, with not just the Government’s relationship with China, but the relationship between the Governments of China and Russia.”
“They are all in hiding, because they are embarrassed. They can join us and stop this surrender. They can tell their constituents that they voted to save a British territory from being lost, that they stood up for our defence and security, that they voted to save £35 billion from disgracefully being handed over to a foreign Government while their taxes at home go up and their public services are squeezed, and that they voted to defend the rights of the Chagossians. Alternatively, they can sleepwalk through the Division Lobby like sheep, defending the indefensible and backing another Labour weak policy and failure of their enfeebled Prime Minister. Conservatives have opposed this deal at every stage from day one and we will continue to do so.”
“( Urgent Question ): To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs if she will make a statement on the Government’s plans for the Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill.”
“Has the Prime Minister had a direct discussion with the President about Chagos in the last week, and can the Minister confirm that any changes to our 1966 treaty with the US will undergo parliamentary scrutiny under the 21-day Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010 process, with time given for debates and votes? Does he accept that it would be logical for this House to consider amendments to the 1996 treaty with the US before proceeding with the Bill? Can the Minister confirm that upon appointment as the British Indian Ocean Territory envoy and before becoming National Security Adviser, Jonathan Powell, a friend of China, accelerated the negotiations with Mauritius to surrender the Chagos Islands? It is time Labour saw sense, scrapped this treaty and stood up for Britain.”
“It states that the British Indian Ocean Territory “shall remain under the United Kingdom’s sovereignty.” Does the Minister accept that the Bill and the treaty with Mauritius violate the 1966 treaty with the US? Following the US President saying that the UK is giving away the Chagos Islands “FOR NO REASON WHATSOVER…There is no doubt that China and Russia have noticed this act of total weakness…The UK giving away extremely important land is an act of GREAT STUPIDITY”, can the Minister tell us what discussions have taken place with the US Administration in the last few days and whether they have communicated that they are now reviewing the deal? Britain’s weak Prime Minister seemed to suggest in the House last week that he was being bullied by the President, which is quite a personal statement.”
“Labour’s Chagos surrender humiliation continues. Today the Government were hoping to force through their surrender Bill in the House of Lords—giving away territory, handing over £35 billion to a foreign Government allied to China, and betraying the Chagossians. But after the Conservatives pointed out how their surrender would violate our existing international obligations and challenged the Government, the Government pulled the Bill from the House of Lords Order Paper to avoid being defeated. In its rush to appease left-wing lawyer friends, Labour overlooked the 1966 treaty between the UK and the US. I have a copy in front of me for the Minister to read.”
“This amendment would help to bring about more openness and transparency on the costs.”
“The Prime Minister said that Five Eyes partners, including the United States, backed the Chagos surrender Bill, but today the American President has publicly opposed it, rightly citing the very concerns that we Conservative Members have raised about the malign influence of China and Russia, and their benefiting directly from the surrender of the Chagos islands. Is President Trump right? Given that Labour’s Chagos surrender Bill will cost £35 billion, compromise our national security and betray the rights of the Chagossian community, when will the Government finally see sense and scrap this shameful treaty?”
“The Government have just given planning permission to the new Chinese super-hub embassy—the document is 240 pages; there it is for us to read—while Jimmy Lai, a British national, continues to be imprisoned in appalling conditions on bogus political charges under the disgraceful Hong Kong national security law. Does the Foreign Secretary agree that it is unacceptable for China to be rewarded with this spy hub in the heart of London while Jimmy languishes in prison?”
“In the light of the right hon. Lady’s remarks and the fact that Jimmy Lai’s sentencing is expected soon, does she agree that when the Prime Minister goes to kowtow to Beijing and comes back with no movement on Jimmy Lai’s release, that trip should be regarded as a failure of British diplomacy?”
“We will not accept this deal to surrender British sovereignty; it is a deal that we will continue to oppose and challenge Ministers on. Every vote today is a vote to kill this Bill. We will keep on voting against this Bill and opposing it until the Government—and, one would hope, the Prime Minister—see sense, withdraw it and tear up the treaty. We are not the only ones vociferously opposing this, because we now know that the President of the United States is against it; he says that it is being done “for no reason whatsoever”, and that China and Russia will “have noticed this act of total weakness.””
“When Labour limited the time for this House to give the Bill the line-by-line scrutiny it needed, it was the House of Lords that stepped in and made time available. When this Labour Government ignored and neglected the views of the Chagossian community, it was the House of Lords and the International Relations and Defence Committee that came to the rescue and organised a survey, giving important insights into Chagossians’ concerns about the Government of Mauritius and the future of their ancestral home. When Labour refused to accept any amendments to modify and improve this £35 billion surrender Bill, it was the House of Lords that made important changes, which we are debating today. Let me be clear: this is a Bill that the Conservatives have fought against at every single stage.”
“Labour’s Chagos surrender Bill is back, and this House has its last chance to act in the national interest, defend the rights of the Chagossian community and protect the money of hard-pressed British taxpayers, who are being expected to foot a colossal bill of £35 billion, which is being given to a foreign Government to—guess what?—cut their taxes, while our taxes rise. I put on record the thanks of Conservative Members to the other place for their scrutiny, and their diligence in once again holding this Government to account. When Labour plotted to deny this House a debate and a vote on the surrender treaty during the 21-day process under the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010, it was Conservatives in the House of Lords who forced a debate and a vote.”
“Let me remind my right hon. Friend exactly what the President of the United States said. He has said that this is being done “for no reason whatsoever”, and that “There is no doubt that China and Russia have noticed this act of total weakness.” The previous Foreign Secretary, now the Deputy Prime Minister, is on the record as saying: “If President Trump doesn’t like the deal, the deal will not go forward… they’ve got to be happy with the deal or there is no deal”, so why has Labour continued to press this Bill? In the light of the President’s comments, can the Minister tell us what will happen to the status of the 1966 exchange of notes between the UK and the United States, which states clearly that the British Indian Ocean Territory “shall remain under United Kingdom sovereignty”? What is the impact on that agreement?”
“I thank my hon. Friend for his comments. The Opposition are completely against this deal, and the President of the United States has said that it is going ahead “for no reason whatsoever”. It seems to me that the Government are still on hold to the President of the United States.”
“Labour Ministers have had the bare-faced cheek to come here and give us their valuation of £3.5 billion, whereas the Government Actuary’s Department tells us that it is £35 billion. In most areas of Government spending, Labour likes to brag about how much is being spent—welfare is a familiar theme that it likes to go on about—but on this issue, it is using a valuation technique to downplay the amount. We have heard the Prime Minister claim that this is “how the OBR counts the cost”. However, the Office for Budget Responsibility has said: “The OBR does not hold any information on the costs or financial impacts of the specific treaty over the future sovereignty of the Chagos Archipelago. We can confirm that we have not been contacted by HM Treasury, MoD or the Governments Actuary’s Department”, so what is the truth?”
“Let me say, for the benefit of everyone in this House, that the United States of America is our strongest ally when it comes to the national security of our country, and rightly so. When the President of the United States raises concerns, we should listen to them, and I would like to think that this Government will act on them. Let me turn to the details of Lords amendment 5, which would introduce new provisions on transparency about the costs that British taxpayers are being forced to pay. It is vital that this House sees the full costs, as Labour has never acknowledged or accepted the financial costs and burdens of this Bill for the taxpayer. As the House knows, the Conservative party had to force the information out of the Government through freedom of information requests.”
“The hon. Gentleman is right that that treaty relates to nuclear weapons coming on to the base at Diego Garcia. That is why our emphasis must be on the strength of the relationship between our two countries when it comes to our national security—this House will not disagree on that—but it is deeply concerning that the President of the United States has explicitly expressed his disapproval of this entire process and this giveaway. To address the hon. Member’s point about the nuclear treaty, we should absolutely be engaging with our closest ally, the United States of America.”
“My hon. Friend is right, and what he says speaks to it being complete nonsense for the Government to have proceeded with the Bill. It is an act of gross self-harm and, to quote the President of the United Sates, an “act of great stupidity” that will have significant consequences for this Government.”