Israel and Palestine

Debate between Andrew Murrison and Stephen Doughty

Monday 14th September 2026 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Doughty]

The hon. Gentleman raises significant points about the important security, intelligence and defence relationship that we have with Israel. I will be clear at the outset that the measures that we have taken very much relate to our dispute about the actions of this Israeli Government, not of Israel, and certainly not of the Israeli people. With regard to his Jewish constituents, I absolutely recognise the significant concerns and fears about the threats that Jewish communities in this country and across the world face, particularly from rising antisemitism and violence. Of course, we have marked some very sombre events in recent weeks—I have heard that reflected from my Jewish constituents—and I can absolutely assure him that the Government engage closely with representatives of the Jewish communities in this country. He will also recognise that a range of views have been expressed about the Government’s announcements last week. I want to be clear that the British people, including those with ties to the region, want the suffering and violence in the region to end; a path to peace; and a two-state solution restored, in which a safe and secure Israel exists along a sovereign and viable Palestine. That is within the context of recognising the very real threats that Israel faces, including from Iran and its proxies.

[Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)]

The Minister will have to be very careful about what we say and do because of the effect on Jews in this country. In that regard, what assessment has he made of the Campaign against Antisemitism’s findings on Jew hate in our national health service? Does he agree that everybody needs to be assured that when they are at their most vulnerable, they will be dealt with equitably, without reference to their colour, creed, race or anything else? Yet we find that patients are being abused simply because they are Jewish, and that Jews working in the NHS are being disadvantaged.

[Stephen Doughty]

The concerns that the right hon. Gentleman raises are very serious, and he can be absolutely assured that the Government want to root out antisemitism in all its forms in this country, and indeed in every walk of life, whether in the health service or in education; I have heard very concerning examples of antisemitic incidents in schools and universities. That is why this Government are investing not only in the security of Jewish communities in this country, but in specific measures in public services. I take very seriously any concerns that he raises; of course, he has distinguished medical experience himself.

It is also important to recognise that next month will mark three years since the atrocity of 7 October, which was, as the Foreign Secretary said,

“a murderous act by a murderous terrorist organisation designed to massacre and instil fear across a whole population.”—[Official Report, 8 September 2026; Vol. 790, c. 879.]

It was designed not only to cause death and destruction in Israel, but to instil fear across the world. This was the worst attack on Jewish people since the Holocaust, and I want to be clear again that there is no justification for the actions of Hamas, or their rejection of the peaceful co-existence of Israelis and Palestinians. They can play no part in that future, and they must disarm.

We avidly and continuously support the 20-point plan, and the efforts to bring about peace and a secure future for the people in Gaza and across the whole of Palestine. I also want to make it clear, as the Foreign Secretary did, that we reject those who make any attempt to de-legitimise Israel, or to support the so-called BDS— boycott, divestment and sanctions—movement. Our disagreements are with the Government of Israel and their actions, not with Israel, and certainly not with the Israeli people.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Andrew Murrison and Stephen Doughty

Tuesday 1st September 2026 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Doughty]

We raise all cases with authorities in line with the appropriate consular protocols. I am happy to speak with my hon. Friend about the case involving his constituents and see what further we can do.

[Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)]

I congratulate the Government on the hiring of Alistair Burt—he is a good hire and will do great things for some of these most complex of cases—but does the Minister agree that many of these cases are extremely difficult and exceptionally traumatic, and that it is far better to prevent them happening in the first place? What more can be done to advise discretionary travellers on the risks they run when travelling to some of these exceptionally challenging locations, and particularly to advise them in advance of the finite nature of any consular support that may be forthcoming if they get into trouble?

[Stephen Doughty]

I absolutely concur with the right hon. Gentleman’s praise for Alistair Burt. He held my position in the past, and commands immense respect across this House; it has been a pleasure to work with him so far. I certainly will welcome his challenge and review of the most complex cases—as the right hon. Gentleman said, some of these cases are incredibly difficult. He rightly says that prevention is crucially important. We provide FCDO travel advice, as well as tailored advice in some cases, but we absolutely want to make sure that British nationals are aware of the full range of risks of travelling to a number of locations, and we attempt to make those risks very clear in advance.

Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill

Debate between Andrew Murrison and Stephen Doughty

Monday 13th April 2026 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Doughty]

They are illegal and they are not appropriate; it is a dangerous environment and it is not appropriate for them to be on there. We are disappointed by the judgment that was made. The BIOT is appealing that judgment. If the hon. Gentleman wants me to provide him with a list of items that were sought to be provided on that island, I think he would be quite shocked. I am sure he would agree with me that it is not appropriate to have a drone flying on those islands, or other items that are not necessary. This is a dangerous and unsafe environment. Quite frankly, I am astounded that the Opposition, and the other party with one representative in the Chamber, are attempting to support people arriving illegally by boats on an island that is not safe for them. That is, quite frankly, extraordinary.

[Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)]

I very much welcome the statement and commend the Minister for the way that he has framed it. He has been absolutely spectacular, if I may say so, over the months in trying to defend the indefensible, as indeed he has been today with this U-turn on steroids. May I press him on the matter of money? He has been Delphic in his response to two of my hon. Friends on the demands that Mauritius, perfectly reasonably, will be making of this Government, given this utter mess and the fact that spending plans were already being made on the back of the largesse that the Minister had been talking about. Will he confirm that not a penny piece will be passed to Mauritius in either payments or in compensation, now that the treaty has gone the way of the apocryphal Norwegian Blue, and tell us what legal notes have been passed between the two Governments, given that plainly this thing is now not going to be happening, in relation to moneys in compensation that Mauritius, perfectly reasonably, will now be demanding of the UK?

[Stephen Doughty]

I answered that question very clearly a moment ago in response to the hon. Member for West Worcestershire (Dame Harriett Baldwin).

Strait of Hormuz

Debate between Andrew Murrison and Stephen Doughty

Monday 16th March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Doughty]

I will not get into specific hypothetical scenarios, but we are engaged with a wide range of partners across the region. That is why the Foreign Secretary was speaking with Gulf partners this week at the Gulf Co-operation Council. She was engaged with Saudi counterparts and Foreign Ministers. They expressed their thanks for Britain’s solidarity and engagement on these crucial issues, which have an impact on their economies, and on the wider defence and security needs across the Gulf.

[Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)]

Since there is no plan to reopen the strait, it seems that the price of fertiliser will skyrocket. What advice does the Minister have for farmers in the northern hemisphere who would normally be buying fertiliser at this time to support spring plantings? Many are making a decision on whether to go ahead with those plantings. He will know that if they do not, that will have dire implications for food prices and the cost of living.

[Stephen Doughty]

The right hon. Gentleman rightly sets out a very important issue for rural communities across this country. If I may, Mr Speaker, I will get one of my colleagues in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to write to him with the detail. The issue is not only the direct impact on oil and gas prices, but the impact on inflation, fertiliser and supply chains more generally. He is right to raise those issues, and I will come back to him with further details.

Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill

Debate between Andrew Murrison and Stephen Doughty

Monday 26th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Doughty]

I should clarify that I was referring not to the right hon. Gentleman, but to the irresponsible procedural game playing by Opposition peers in the other place. Many people, including those who oppose the Bill, have raised serious, considered comments on and criticisms of the Bill which we have tried to engage with in good faith. I do not recognise his comments about the cost. This is a priceless national security asset, and the deal compares well with what other countries pay for their bases, such as France’s base in Djibouti. This is a crucial deal for the United Kingdom, the United States and our allies. We will never compromise on national security and on protecting this country from terrorism and hostile states. That is absolutely crucial. That is why we are doing this deal.

[Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)]

May I first express my respect for the Minister’s ability to consistently defend the indefensible? An absolute masterclass! Is it not the case that the President of the United States now has our Prime Minister completely over a barrel after his incautious and unhelpful remarks over Greenland? Would it not have been better, along the lines of “The Art of the Deal”, to have dealt with this before the Government signed the surrender treaty, and not after?

[Stephen Doughty]

The right hon. Gentleman makes a link with the discussions on Greenland in recent weeks. We have been absolutely clear that we will always work with the United States on the treaty: we will always allay any concerns they have, and we have engaged with them every single day throughout the process. The deal was welcomed by Secretary Rubio, the US Administration, Secretary Hegseth and across the United States system, and very much so because—I will make this point, Mr Speaker—we secured a deal that, crucially, secures the operations that we and the United States conduct at the base, and that has additional protections that the previous Government did not get into place.

British Indian Ocean Territory: Sovereignty

Debate between Andrew Murrison and Stephen Doughty

Wednesday 2nd July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Doughty]

I have respect for the right hon. Gentleman, but I totally reject his assertion. There is full support for this deal—and, indeed, full support for it from our allies in the United States and the Five Eyes partners. On the point about alleged tax cuts, at no point in his Budget speech did Prime Minister Ramgoolam say that he was planning to fund income tax reform with the money from this deal. That was very, very clear. Indeed, the rationale for this deal, which I have explained multiple times to the House, is that our national security was at risk and the operations of that base could not function as they once did. That is why the Opposition started the negotiations and why we have concluded them.

[Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)]

After yesterday’s complete chaos, my constituents are bracing themselves for big tax increases in the autumn. How does the Minister think they feel when they see the Mauritian Government crowing about virtually abolishing income tax in Mauritius thanks to the largesse that he is about to pour on them?

[Stephen Doughty]

I am genuinely surprised by the comments of the right hon. Gentleman. As a former Defence Minister and someone who has served, he will know the importance of this base and the need to secure it, and he will know the risks to our operations that were inherent under the previous Government. That is why his Government started this process and why we have concluded it. It is also why our costs under the deal are broadly comparable with what France pays for its base in Djibouti, even though our base 15 times larger and has immeasurably more capability, as he well knows.

British Indian Ocean Territory

Debate between Andrew Murrison and Stephen Doughty

Wednesday 2nd April 2025 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Doughty]

There does appear to be some confusion about the different legal judgments among the Opposition, as I can hear from the chuntering. There are a number of ways in which the operation of the base was not sustainable. We are very clear that without a deal—as the previous Government recognised—we would face serious, real-world operational impacts on the base that would erode our ability to operate key frequencies vital for our own communications and to counter hostile states, affecting everything from overflight clearances to securing contractors, with consequential rocketing costs, declining investment and a degraded facility. We were not willing to take that risk, and have therefore secured this base for our security and that of our allies.

[Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)]

The United States is busy increasing its presence on Diego Garcia, most recently with its B-2 Spirit aircraft, probably facing towards Iran. Given that, how much will the Trump White House be contributing to the endowment that the Minister proposes we hand to Mauritius?

[Stephen Doughty]

As I have set out on a number of occasions, and again today, when we present the treaty, we will present the costs and the arrangements, and the House will have the chance to scrutinise them. We welcome the fact that the United States recognises the strength of this deal, which is because it is rooted in a rational and hard-headed determination to protect our security and that of the United States, and our presence in the Indo-Pacific. As I said before, I am not going to get into operational discussions about matters at the base in relation to the presence of aircraft.

Chagos Islands

Debate between Andrew Murrison and Stephen Doughty

Wednesday 5th February 2025 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Doughty]

As we have said repeatedly, the base was not on a sustainable footing. This deal puts it on a sustainable footing.

[Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)]

What does it say about this Government’s priorities that they will deny pensioners the winter fuel payment, leave WASPI women with nothing and fail to support jobs on Merseyside by supporting AstraZeneca at Speke, and that they should be contemplating an emergency Budget to raise more taxes on hard-working British people, while spaffing £9 billion on Mauritius?

[Stephen Doughty]

I am not entirely sure what the right hon. Gentleman’s question is. If he is talking about the previous Government’s economic legacy to this one, we have a substantial disagreement. The fact is that we are picking up the pieces from the mess in which his Government left the country economically and, crucially, in terms of our national defence. We will not scrimp when it comes to our national security, we will not scrimp when it comes to our armed forces, and we will not scrimp when it comes to our overseas bases and our commitments to our allies. That is exactly why we are getting this deal.

British Indian Ocean Territory: Sovereignty

Debate between Andrew Murrison and Stephen Doughty

Wednesday 18th December 2024 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Doughty]

We have been very clear that these negotiations are between the United Kingdom and Mauritius, and I have set out in the past the reasons for that. The interests of the Chagossians are absolutely at the heart of this agreement, and as I have said, I have repeatedly engaged with them. The hon. Gentleman continues to speculate, but with the greatest of respect, he does not know the detail of what has been agreed. He does not know the detail of what has been shared. And he does not know the detail that the national security apparatus of the United States has considered. I am confident that his concerns will be allayed once he sees the detail of this deal.

[Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)]

Merry Christmas, Mr Speaker. The Minister says that views across the Chagossian community are mixed. In my experience, Mr Speaker, when politicians say that, they are simply choosing the views that they want to hear. Will the Minister take the opportunity that has been given by the incoming Mauritian Government to take a breathing space in which he can consult formally and in a structured way with the Chagossians to find out what they want?

[Stephen Doughty]

I have engaged with the Chagossian community twice in recent months, as I have made clear in answers to a number of parliamentary questions tabled by the right hon. Gentleman’s colleagues. The interest of the Chagossians will continue to be at the heart of this agreement, and I take their concerns very seriously. I am being quite honest, Mr Speaker, that there are a range of views: some oppose the deal; and some are in favour of it. That is completely natural in a democratic process.

Chagos Islands

Debate between Andrew Murrison and Stephen Doughty

Wednesday 13th November 2024 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Doughty]

Let me first thank my hon. Friend for his service for our country and its national security—and, indeed, thank all new Members who have served in our armed forces. I completely agree with his comments: we are indeed protecting our national security and putting matters on a secure footing

[Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)]

Alexander Downer, a former Australian Foreign Minister, a former high commissioner to this country, a former United Nations special adviser on Cyprus and a good friend of this country, says that the surrender of the Chagos Islands is

“symptomatic of a country that no longer has geopolitical perspective.”

What is the Minister’s response to Mr Downer’s remarks, and does he agree with his comment that the last Labour Government were prepared to capitulate on the two Cypriot sovereign base areas, Dhekelia and Akrotiri? Who would have thought it? Is not the Chagos surrender just same old Labour—strong on post-colonial guilt and weak on safety, security and stability?

[Stephen Doughty]

I do not recognise those comments in the slightest, not least because we have repeatedly made clear our commitment to our overseas territories: to the Falklands, to Gibraltar, and to the sovereign base areas in Cyprus, which, as the right hon. Gentleman well knows, are protected under the 1960 treaty. I have made statements to that effect. We are clear about our support for those territories and their importance to us. This is not about handing something over; it is about Diego Garcia being on a secure footing, with our military base and our presence secure for the future.

Commonwealth Parliamentary Association and International Committee of the Red Cross (Status) Bill [Lords]

Debate between Andrew Murrison and Stephen Doughty

2nd reading
Tuesday 22nd October 2024 Commons Chamber

[The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Stephen Doughty)]

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

I put on the record my previous engagements with the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association, on many excellent and informative trips that contributed to our relationships across the Commonwealth, and my past engagement with the International Committee of the Red Cross.

I am delighted to see the Bill back in the House; I hope that there will be wholehearted unity today to ensure that it makes it to Royal Assent. I think this is its fourth iteration. The last time it was debated here was as a private Member’s Bill in the last Session, but sadly it ran out of time before the Dissolution of Parliament for the general election. I pay tribute to the former Member for Basingstoke for her tireless work in introducing that Bill and pushing it through, and to many hon. Members, some of whom I see here today, for their past work with the CPA and the ICRC.

It is critical that both the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association and the International Committee of the Red Cross be given their correct status in UK legislation to conduct their work and deliver their objectives while operating in the UK. This will help to guarantee that the CPA remains headquartered in the UK and will ensure that the UK can guarantee the ICRC that the confidential information that it shares as a matter of course with the UK Government is secure and protected.

The UK is deeply committed to the Commonwealth and believes that the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting, which the Foreign Secretary is attending in Samoa, will be an important opportunity to mobilise action on shared interests, including upholding shared Commonwealth values. Those values are embodied by the CPA’s important work to strengthen inclusive and accountable democracy across the Commonwealth. I think back to my own many engagements with the CPA in which I have seen that work at first hand, both when delegations have visited and when I have been part of delegations. The UK values its partnership with the CPA and is proud to support the work of the CPA and its regional branch CPA UK. That includes developing benchmarks and indicators of parliamentary democracy and addressing modern slavery in supply chains and issues such as gender-based violence with Parliaments and parliamentarians across the Commonwealth.

The ICRC is an essential partner in achieving the UK’s global humanitarian objectives. It has a unique mandate from states to uphold the Geneva conventions and works globally to promote international humanitarian law. Its impartiality, neutrality and independence allow it to engage and negotiate with all parties to a conflict and to provide protection and humanitarian assistance to vulnerable populations, often in contexts in which other agencies are unable to operate. I have witnessed its important work, in opposition and in my past career in the humanitarian sector.

Clauses 1 and 2 will therefore provide for both organisations to be treated in a manner comparable to an international organisation, with the associated privileges and immunities. Treatment as an international organisation will allow the CPA to continue to operate fully across the Commonwealth and international fora. It will allow the organisation to participate fully in areas in which it is currently restricted, including signing up to joint international statements and communiqués. That is vital to ensure that the CPA can continue its work to promote democracy and good governance across the Commonwealth. The CPA is currently registered with the Charity Commission for England and Wales and is not an international intergovernmental organisation; it therefore has its own unique constitutional arrangements that reflect its specific international mandate.

Clause 2 is critical to enable the ICRC to operate in the UK in accordance with its international mandate, maintaining its strict adherence to the principles of neutrality, impartiality and independence and its working methods of confidentiality. The ICRC is not an inter-governmental organisation either; it has its own unique and historical international humanitarian mandate to protect the lives and dignity of victims of armed conflict and other situations of violence and to provide them with assistance.

[Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)]

Nobody doubts the good work of the CPA or the ICRC—we have all seen it as parliamentarians—but does the Minister understand that many of us are a little wary about conferring privileges and immunities by Order in Council after the Bill is passed, since this House is not, in general, in the habit of granting privileges and immunities without scrutiny?

[Stephen Doughty]

The right hon. Gentleman can be assured that these are the appropriate measures. We have determined this way in line with previous discussions on the previous iteration of the Bill. This is the best way to achieve the aims of the Bill in a timely fashion, so that the provisions are put in place for the CPA and the ICRC. I am very happy to write to him further on this matter. The Bill will face scrutiny in Committee, where we will be able to discuss these matters in greater detail.

The provisions in clauses 1 and 2 will ensure that the CPA and the ICRC can be accorded comparable treatment to an international organisation, even when the definition of international organisation in existing legislation is limited to intergovernmental organisations. For the CPA, this treatment will be limited to its core international organs, such as the secretariat. It is not intended that any privileges, immunities or other facilities be extended to any of the national or sub-national branches, so this is a limited provision.

The arrangements for both organisations will detail the day-to-day management of the privileges and immunities granted on a functional needs basis, and other facilities. They will make it clear that there will be no immunity for the CPA’s secretary-general or representatives of the ICRC in respect of damage caused by, for example, a motor vehicle operated or owned by either. The way that the limitations and requirements have been set out in this regard is important.

Clause 2(1)(e) lays out an important confidentiality provision, to protect certain information provided in confidence to His Majesty’s Government by the ICRC from being disclosed in UK civil court proceedings or under any statutory provision or rule of law. As my noble Friend Baroness Chapman stated on Second Reading in the other place, this provision reflects the ICRC’s standard working method of confidentiality, which is designed to protect its staff and operations in active conflict zones. I am sure that Members will understand that publicly disclosing information that the ICRC obtains from confidential dialogue with conflict parties is likely to put at risk its ability to have confidential dialogue with conflict parties, its humanitarian access and, indeed, the security of its staff, and might result in the ICRC restricting the information it shares with the UK.

However, in relation to the concerns that Members have raised in the past, the Bill does not provide an absolute blanket exemption for disclosure requirements for all ICRC communications. Important limitations have been incorporated, such as the exclusion of criminal cases. The Government continue to be committed to respecting the confidentiality of ICRC information as a matter of policy. Past practice has demonstrated the importance of doing so. The Bill is an opportunity to end any uncertainty about the Government’s position and to put this practice on a statutory footing.

I want to turn briefly to clause 3, which is equivalent to section 8 of the International Organisations Act 1968, which allows the Secretary of State to certify questions of fact relating to the status of, or the privileges and immunities conferred on, the organisations. In the context of court proceedings, if a question arises of whether a person is entitled to any privilege or immunity by virtue of an Order in Council made under clauses 1 or 2, such a certification is to be treated as conclusive evidence of those facts for the purposes of proceedings.

Clause 4 details the scope and extent of the Orders in Council that confer privileges and immunities on both organisations under clauses 1 and 2 respectively—this relates to the intervention from the right hon. Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison). An Order in Council may make different provisions for different cases or persons, and it may also contain consequential, supplementary, incidental, transitional or saving provisions. Clause 4 also provides the enabling power for two important aspects: first, the Order in Council may specify circumstances in which privileges and immunities do not apply, either because of an exception or because they have been waived by the organisation; and secondly, the Order in Council may specify that fiscal reliefs and exemptions are subject to arrangements or conditions imposed by the Secretary of State.

Clause 4 provides that any Order in Council made for these purposes will be subject to the draft affirmative parliamentary procedure, which means that they will require the approval of both Houses before they may have effect. The list of privileges and immunities that may be conferred on both organisations is set out in the schedule to the Bill and has been informed by the International Organisations Act.

Briefly, clause 5 explains that the term “ICRC” means the International Committee of the Red Cross, as given under clause 2(1)(a), and it ensures that the definition of “statutory provision” allows for the treatment of the CPA and the ICRC as international organisations in respect of all relevant primary and secondary legislation, including devolved legislation in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland whenever made.

In conclusion, and to reiterate what was said in the other place, the Bill will give the CPA and the ICRC the correct status in UK legislation to allow both organisations to continue their international operations without unnecessary restriction. The Government have a strong commitment to the Commonwealth. It continues to support our global humanitarian objectives through our work with the ICRC, and the Bill is a true reflection of that. I hope that it will enjoy the wholehearted support of the House as it proceeds swiftly into law. I commend it to the House.

St Helena: UK Immigration

Debate between Andrew Murrison and Stephen Doughty

Monday 21st October 2024 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Doughty]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. I have repeatedly made it clear, not least in the Falklands and Gibraltar, that we stand by their sovereignty and self-determination and will defend them. Indeed, that goes for the British overseas territories family, and it is a commitment that I will be making in person when the leaders join me at the Joint Ministerial Council in a few weeks’ time.

[Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)]

Since no migrants have arrived in BIOT since 2022, and given that this agreement lapses after 18 months, what is the problem that the Minister is trying to solve? And given that Rwanda was apparently considered immoral and this is not, is he not simply offering an insult to Kigali?

[Stephen Doughty]

Absolutely not. This is prudent contingency planning. Unfortunately, we inherited a situation from the previous Government where many holes had been left in these very arrangements and where there were significant problems. We are now taking steps to pragmatically address that.