Another Argentine President has threatened British sovereignty over the Falkland Islands, as part of economic distractions. Calum Miller questions the Government's commitment to defence spending and their stance on Liberal Democrat proposals for defence bonds, which aim to restore British deterrence.

The Israeli Minister Ben Gvir has characterised the Falkland Islands as 'occupied' territory and claims that British drilling there is 'stealing money from the Argentine people.' Thornberry questions if the UK Government acknowledges this and the potential ramifications.

The Conservative Benches are clear that the Falkland Islands are British, as decided by the Falkland Islanders. Morton inquires about conversations with the US Administration and the Foreign Secretary's representations to Argentina regarding President Milei’s remarks and potential sanctions against companies involved in the development of the Falkland Islands oil resources.

Carden welcomes the Minister’s strong support for the Falkland Islanders but questions how we can better represent all UK overseas territories for their health, education, and other rights.

Do the Government accept that in order to deter any possibility of military action against the Falklands, it is important not to send the wrong signals? In 1982 there was the withdrawal of HMS Endurance specifically, but there were also huge anti-nuclear campaigns that sent the wrong message to aggressors around the world. Can the Government confirm that, this time, they will not send the wrong signals—over Diego Garcia, for example—or any suggestion that we do not have the naval and air assets to deter and, if necessary, to defend?

President Milei has coupled his renewed sovereignty claim with an increase in defence spending and plans to expand the naval base at Tierra del Fuego. In the light of these developments, can the Minister tell us if we have updated our threat assessments, and if the Falkland Islands’ air, land and maritime defences are adequate to ensure the islands’ and the islanders’ security?

When the Government deal with our allies and friends the Americans, they might remind them about the disputed islands that they are in charge of—Wake Island, Navassa Island, Bajo, Swains Island, Guantanamo Bay—all of which have been supported by the United Kingdom. Should we think about not supporting them? Of course not, but we might just mention them. When we retook the Falklands, the British Government had at their hands 52 frigates and destroyers and well over 100,000 soldiers and naval personnel. Does the Minister not think that the best message we could send would be to get our defences back up?

Like many, I have a close allegiance to the Falkland Islands and the islanders. As a 19-year-old young British soldier, I did my first operational tour of duty in the islands in 1990 and subsequently went back in 1992. Does the Minister agree that while the Falkland Islanders state that they wish to be a UK overseas territory, they will always remain that? To put this into perspective, in the latest referendum, 99.8% of Falkland Islanders voted to support that position, on a 92% turnout. To put it into perspective again, only three islanders voted against.

I do not know whether this is something I still need to declare, Mr Speaker, but I visited the Falkland Islands in 2003 as a guest of the Falkland Islands Government. They have never invited me back. It was apparent then that the principle of self-determination, on which we fought and for which British service people lost their lives, remained unchanged. I have seen nothing to change that view today. When the Minister speaks with the American ambassador, might she gently remind them that in 1982 the Americans were not exactly full-throated in their support of us at that point? It made no difference then and it should make no difference now.

People in Portsmouth are incredibly angry about this. We waved those ships off in ’82, and so many families have a connection to someone who served. We know that 255 brave British personnel died defending the Falkland Islands, and 86 of them were from the Royal Navy. This issue is settled. Argentina was defeated and, above all, the Falkland Islanders have made their choice: they want to remain British. Does the Minister agree that the Argentinian Government and President Trump must stop this disgraceful, disrespectful interference and stop treating the Falkland Islands as a bargaining chip?

Sam Moody is my constituent. He is the chief executive of Rockhopper. During my time in this House, he has been absolutely scrupulous in following the laws of this country and respecting the Falkland Islanders. Will the Minister reassure him and the whole House that this Government will protect the interests of Rockhopper, whatever commercial arrangements it has in place, knowing that Rockhopper has always complied with legislation and respected whichever Government have been in power?

I thank the hon. Member for Bicester and Woodstock (Calum Miller) for securing this important question. Brave British servicepeople died defending the Falkland Islanders’ right to freedom and self-determination more than 40 years ago. We must never forget. Will the Minister confirm that this Labour Government will do the right thing and never compromise when it comes to defending British sovereign territory in the Falklands?

The UK’s success in liberating the Falklands in 1982 was achieved when we had considerably greater naval resources, but it also could not have been achieved without the support of the Reagan Administration. Does the Minister not agree that that shows why it is extremely important to maintain close relations with the United States and not do anything to put those in jeopardy?

The Minister is understandably burdened by the need to be diplomatic. Is the reality not that President Trump can review whatever position he likes, and the Argentinian Government can make whatever threats they like, but it does not make a jot of difference to this country, because the Falkland Islands will remain British?

The Falkland Islands are not just British. They are part of Britain, and an attack on any part of Britain would be an article 5 situation. Yet Donald Trump, when pressed on it the other day, was far from clear on whether we can rely on US support. What are the Government doing to tighten our defence relationship with European and other allies who do understand and share our belief in collective defence?

Bournemouth has a close relationship to the Falklands. Twenty-two-year-old Lance Corporal Christopher Charles Thomas was killed on 30 June 1982; he was of Cardiff and Bournemouth. The people of Bournemouth formally adopted HMS Phoebe and granted it the freedom of the borough; HMS Phoebe patrolled the south Atlantic after the war. I have been contacted by constituents who are outraged by the comments they have heard—in particular, I am thinking of Richard, of East Southbourne and Tuckton, who wants the Government to conduct an urgent review into the defence of the Falklands. Will the Minister give my constituents that assurance?

The Falkland Islands were British long before Argentina even came into existence, but the key is building a diplomatic ability to ensure that that message goes home loud and clear. What efforts are the Minister and other Ministers in the Foreign Office making to build that diplomatic alliance, so that we do not get into a position in which military action is necessary?

Further to the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth East (Tom Hayes), it is important that we talk here and that we have diplomacy, but what practical actions are the Foreign Office and the Ministry of Defence taking to ensure that there is a review of physical defence and security, so that we send a clear message to the Argentinians that they can go no further—that the words are too much, but they should go no further?

The problem is that the Argentinians can smell weakness because of our approach to the Iranians’ attacks on two British bases earlier this year. Will the Minister therefore be clear that, in the light of Iranian threats to our bases this time round, we will not just seek to intercept the missiles attacking them, but attack targets in Iran if they attack our bases? That sort of signal of intent is required in relation to our overseas territories.

Over recess, I had the privilege of visiting the islands with Members of this House and the other place. There, we met the Falkland Islands Government and our British service personnel, and also paid tribute to those who gave the ultimate sacrifice. Whatever the posturing of an Argentinian President or an Israeli Minister, the Falkland Islands remain proudly British. Will the Minister join me in thanking all those service personnel on the islands for their contribution to UK defence?

There is an air of total unreality hanging over this debate. Successive Governments have run down our Royal Navy to its present enfeebled state, they have conspired to surrender other British sovereign territory and we have a Government who procrastinate about signing off a new oil field in the North sea—let alone about one in the south Atlantic. Argentina senses total weakness. When will the Government step up and set out how they will rebuild our Royal Navy and meet the 3% of GDP target for our armed forces, so we can stand tall and defend ourselves and our sovereign interests once more?

This summer, along with other Members of this House and the other place, I got to escape the heatwave here and enjoy some blessed relief in the cold weather of the Falklands, where we enjoyed the incredibly warm welcome of the Falkland Islanders. Our troops and servicepeople down there are doing incredible work and are resolute in their defence of the Falkland Islands. It was clear to me how strongly the Falkland Islanders feel that they are British, and that matches the feeling of my constituents. Can the Minister assure me that she is having conversations with the MOD, our forces and the Falklands Islands Government, to ensure that we have the right level of defence and deterrence to face this new and escalating nonsense rhetoric from Argentina?

Currently, the Royal Navy has an offshore patrol vessel permanently stationed in the Falkland Islands, but given the threat that is being faced and our need to demonstrate resolve—the sort of thing that, sadly, we did not demonstrate in the early 1980s, which led to miscalculation—will the Minister consider speaking to her MOD colleagues to see whether naval assets might at least pay a visit to the Falkland Islands, with a significant platform?

The hon. Member for Bicester and Woodstock (Calum Miller) is absolutely right to say that what is behind this is the deep unpopularity of President Milei; it is not anything actually that the UK has done. It is to the credit of this House that we are entirely united, whichever party we are from, in saying that the Falkland Islands are British and will remain so. Does my hon. Friend agree that those who try to make political points to separate us actually do those who oppose us a favour, and that what they should do is say that the UK Government, His Majesty’s Opposition and all of us in this House are entirely united on this subject?

I pay tribute to all the Falkland Islands veterans in my own constituency and, indeed, around the country, and to the hon. Member for South Ribble (Mr Foster), who is no longer in his place. Is it not the case that we should all be seeking to de-escalate the rhetoric, but at the same time send a very strong signal—a resolve—to President Milei, that if we are required to do so, this country will once again defend the Falkland Islands militarily and, in between that, certainly defend it economically?

The House speaks with one voice when it comes to the Falklands being British. Like colleagues across the House, I represent many veterans in Newcastle-under-Lyme who served in the Falklands, and I thank them for their service. I am grateful to the Minister for her answers to date, but can I suggest that a Minister of the Crown gets on a plane and goes down to the Falklands to stand in solidarity with the people there as the Union flag is flown—and the sooner the better?

Can the Minister confirm that the Government are reviewing the military infrastructure and surveillance capabilities on the islands in response to Argentina’s announced plans to bolster its military presence?

In 1982, the people of Chatham and Chatham dockyard waved off the boats that went to safeguard our territory in the south Pacific. HMS Medway, a ship named after our river in Chatham, is there today, with its sailors working to protect and secure that territory. Will the Minister pay testament to the hard work of the Royal Navy to defend the territory? What further advice and security can she give to ensure that we have the right defence posture to counter any aggression?

Like other Members, I had the privilege of going to the Falkland Islands last month. I thank the Commander British Forces South Atlantic Islands and all his staff for their welcome and professionalism. While there are clearly domestic issues going on in Argentina, the cold hand of China is not far from sight, whether it be illegal fishing in the blue hole, secret missile bases in Neuquén, or nefarious activity in Antarctica. What discussions has the Minister had with European and US counterparts about dealing with the threat that China poses, given that it is in all our interests in the free western world that the Falkland Islands remain British in perpetuity?

It is concerning to hear the sabre-rattling from Argentina towards a self-governing population who overwhelmingly identify as British. It is not just the United States that is fanning the flames, however. Israel’s sanctioned Minister of National Security has called for Israel to recognise the Falklands as Argentinian, and its President has stated: 'Israel will act against Britain.' Ignoring the irony of an Israeli Minister accusing another country of illegal occupation, what discussions has the Foreign Secretary had on this matter with our supposed ally, which is trying to undermine British sovereignty?

The Minister has spoken about sovereignty, and she will be aware that under the Offshore Minerals Ordinance 1994, any decision on exploration has to come to this country. Can she rule out that if the Falklands asks for exploration in its area on oil and gas, this Government will not block it?

It is clear to the British public that the special relationship between the UK and the US is more special for the UK than it is for the US under Trump. With the US extending threats, bullying and tariff threats, it is akin to an abusive relationship. Will the Minister unequivocally confirm that Britain will not tolerate intimidation and blackmail by the US, Israel or others, and that British sovereignty matters more than our relationship with hostile states that are committing blatant, horrific violations of international law?

I am glad to see the Government adopting a robust posture when it comes to the Falkland Islands, but this time last year at the UN General Assembly, neither the former Minister for the overseas territories, the hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth, nor the former Foreign Secretary, the right hon. Member for Pontefract, Castleford and Knottingley, had anything to say about the matter. I would like some assurances that the Prime Minister will tackle President Milei at the UN General Assembly later this month. The Minister talks about the military capability in the Falklands, but I gently remind her that three of the offshore patrol vessels that we currently have rotating through the Falklands are due to be sold to the Uruguayan navy in the next 18 months, and four of the Typhoons that we have down there—the Tranche 1s—are due to be decommissioned next year. Is she confident that the US would have no problems whatsoever with our using that base should we need to take military action against Argentina?

I thank the Minister for her strong and resolute answers. Following the deeply concerning decision surrounding the Chagos Islands, the good people of the Falkland Islands need more than just warm words; they need iron-clad guarantees. The Minister has stood firm at the Dispatch Box today and declared unequivocally that the sovereignty of the Falkland Islands is non-negotiable. President Trump must stand by the United Kingdom. Will the Minister ensure that the international community is under absolutely no illusions that we beat the Argentinians when it mattered, that the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland can and will do that again if necessary, and that those islands will remain British for as long as their people wish?