Ukraine

Debate between Mark Francois and Stephen Doughty

Wednesday 25th February 2026 Commons Chamber

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

I thank all hon. and right hon. Members for their contributions to today’s debate, particularly those who have recently returned from Ukraine, bringing powerful testimony. I have visited Ukraine three times since the start of what was rightly described as this phase of Russia’s illegal invasion, and I have had similar experiences; they have shown me the tenacity and courage of Ukrainians, which should inspire not only this country, but the whole world. I do not feel any surprise about that, because I have known Ukrainians for 30 years, often through their ties with south Wales. Cardiff, in my constituency, was twinned with Luhansk. It was Welsh people who helped found the industries in the Donbas and Donetsk. We have a Sebastopol in the south Wales valleys because of British and French troops fighting in the Crimean war in 1855.

We have very powerful Ukrainian communities locally—many Members have said that they do, too—and it was an honour in recent weeks to join my constituents who have reached out with their homes and their hearts to Ukrainians, as have the constituents of so many Members across this House. Just the other night, we celebrated the contribution of Ukrainian women through an incredible piece of theatre around motanka dolls, which, as some will know, are a very important part of Ukrainian culture.

Of course, women and girls and civilians have suffered terribly at the hands of Russia’s barbaric attacks, and we must show our continued support and solidarity every single day. I am glad that we have seen that support on both sides of the House. I do not want to sound a discordant note, because there is much unity in this House today and among most of the British people, but as the shadow Minister said, yet again we see one party absent, and absence speaks volumes. That is before we get on to their spouting of Kremlin narratives, or the activities of their former leader in Wales—and we need to speak about that, because it is a very serious issue, especially when we see the unity in the rest of this House. But I am very glad that we have signalled once again that we will stand with Ukraine today, tomorrow and for years to come.

[Mr Francois]

We would all be intrigued to know who Reform’s defence spokesperson is, so if the Minister picks up any hints about that, perhaps he could give me a ring.

[Stephen Doughty]

Again, that speaks volumes about where those Members of this House stand, but that is for them to explain.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Doughty]

I completely agree with the hon. Gentleman. A key part of the funding that the Foreign Secretary announced yesterday was for that, but there is also the work that we have done to support the judicial system and investigations in Ukraine, our work at the International Criminal Court, the work we are doing around a special tribunal on the crime of aggression, and the International Claims Commission for Ukraine. There are many different ways in which we will seek justice and accountability.

The hon. Gentleman references Bucha; I have heard of some most horrific things happening there, in particular regarding the treatment and killings of priests and religious figures. I spoke about that yesterday at the United Nations. There is a very serious situation in the temporarily occupied territories as regards freedom of religion and attacks on religious figures. I spoke about that with our colleagues in the United States while I was in Washington DC, just before I was at the United Nations.

[Mr Francois]

rose—

[Stephen Doughty]

I will give way again once briefly, but then I will respond to the points made in the debate.

[Mr Francois]

I am sorry to hammer the nail on the point about insurance; I do not expect the Minister to make policy on the hoof, but so many of the Ukrainians we spoke to were so hard over on the point about insurance in London for the shadow fleet. Could the Minister at least give the House a commitment now that he will go away and work with ministerial colleagues to see what more can be done in this area? So many Ukrainians are asking for exactly that.

[Stephen Doughty]

It is a very important point. I have had many conversations with the insurance industry over the past year and a half, and we continue to look at all the ways to choke off the energy revenues to Russia. I am not going to pre-announce decisions that we might make, but we have been very clear about what we see as the track on this. A substantial number of measures were announced yesterday, including on illicit oil trading networks, which were at the heart of some of the sanctions we announced. The right hon. Gentleman will be able to catch up; I am happy to offer further briefings on that.

Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill

Debate between Mark Francois and Stephen Doughty

Consideration of Lords amendments
Tuesday 20th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Doughty]

That is a very reasonable question from the right hon. Gentleman. Of course, we engage with the United States as our closest defence and security partner every single day. Conversations are ongoing. We are always engaging with them on these matters, and I am sure we will continue to do so over the coming days. I have set out the clear position that the United States set out on many occasions—this went through a detailed inter-agency process—and of course we will continue conversations with the United States, as we have done before.

I was rather baffled by the complaint of the hon. Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (David Simmonds), who is not now in his place—[Interruption.] Ah, he is at the Bar of the House. It was his Government who established the citizenship route for Chagossians, which rightly gives them the right to come here, and local authorities can engage in the usual way with the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government about their needs.

My hon. Friend the Member for Blackley and Middleton South (Graham Stringer) raised the United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination. This is very important, so let me be clear: it does speak on behalf of the United Nations or member states. Indeed, the UN Secretary-General and the African Union chairperson both welcomed the agreement, so it is simply not the case that those concerns were raised by the United Nations, and it is important that the record be corrected.

There were concerns about the reasons. I was clear about the operational impacts on the base of not securing this deal, which include overflight clearances, securing contractors, declining investment and degraded facility. We would also be unable to prevent—this is a crucial point that Members have reasonably raised—China or other nations from setting up installations on the outer islands or carrying out joint exercises. I have set out the legal reasons for that on many occasions, which include the litigation that could be brought quickly by Mauritius against the UK, including under annexe VII of the UN convention on the law of the sea. A judgment from such a tribunal would be legally binding.

The shadow Foreign Secretary raised the Pelindaba treaty. The United Kingdom and Mauritius are satisfied that their existing international obligations are compatible with the agreement, and we are very clear that we comply with our obligations under international law.

[Mr Francois]

I refer the Minister to article 298 of the UNCLOS treaty, which means we have a complete opt-out on military bases, but may I take him back to costs? The Government Actuary’s Department, whose whole raison d’être is to calculate long-term spending commitments, stood up the £35 billion figure—in fact, it said it might be more. Who should the House believe—people whose whole life’s work is to calculate long-term costs, or this Minister?

[Stephen Doughty]

I regret the right hon. Gentleman’s tone. I have respect for him normally, but if he had been listening a moment ago, he would have heard me explain this exact point. It is a nominal amount. It is not adjusted for inflation or the social time preference rate. The value of money changes over time; £1 today is not worth the same as £1 tomorrow. This is very clear. I set out the multiple ways in which this has been verified, and it is even agreed by the TaxPayers’ Alliance.

We have discussed these issues at great length in this House on many occasions. Let me be clear: this deal secures this base for the national security of the United Kingdom and the United States, and it secures it for our allies. It is vital, and this is an important point to end on. My hon. Friend the Member for Blackley and Middleton South asked why this matters to our constituents. It matters because the capabilities on this base matter for the national security of this country, our allies and our citizens in preventing terrorism and the activities of adversaries with hostile intent towards us, the United States and our allies. It secures this base into the future, and we urge the House to reject the Lords amendments and agree with Lords amendment 4.

Question put, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 1.

UK-EU Summit

Debate between Mark Francois and Stephen Doughty

Tuesday 13th May 2025 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Doughty]

No.

In a world of turmoil and uncertainty—

[Mr Francois]

Is there a red line on dynamic alignment—yes or no?

[Stephen Doughty]

I have answered that question already. [Interruption.]