Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill
Stephen Doughty Excerpts(2 days, 18 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Priti Patel (Witham) (Con)
(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.
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Stephen Doughty)
I hope that you make a swift recovery, Mr Speaker—having injured my ankle just before Christmas, I know how painful it can be.
On 22 May, the Diego Garcia treaty was signed and laid before the House. As the Defence Secretary told the House on the day of signature, the treaty secures the strategically important UK-US military base on the island of Diego Garcia. The base, as I have said in the House many times, is essential to the security of the United Kingdom and our key allies, including the United States. It is essential to keeping British people safe. It is also one of our most significant contributions to the transatlantic defence and security partnership, because it enables rapid deployment of operations and forces across the middle east, east Africa and south Asia, helping to combat some of the most challenging threats, including threats from terrorism and hostile states. Its unique strategic location creates real military advantage across the Indo-Pacific. The facility has also helped the collection of data used to support counter-terrorism operations against, for instance, high-value Islamic State targets in recent years.
As we have made clear many times in the House, the UK will never compromise on our national security, and, as we have been repeatedly making clear, the agreement that we have struck is vital for protecting our national security, guaranteeing the long-term future of a base that is vital for both the UK and the United States, which had been under threat, as the Opposition fully understood and on which they were briefed. The deal secures the operations of the joint UK-US base on Diego Garcia for generations. It was publicly welcomed by the United States, Australia and all other Five Eyes partners, as well as key international partners, including India, Japan and South Korea.
Just last week, the House spent two hours debating the Lords amendments to the Bill. The Opposition will know, of course, that the programming of business in the other place is a matter for the other place and not for us. However, the Lords’ consideration of Commons amendments has been delayed because the Opposition tabled a wrecking amendment hours before the other place rose—[Interruption]—I think this just shows the measure of them, Mr Speaker—and a day before a scheduled debate. This is irresponsible and reckless behaviour from the official Opposition in the second House, using programming tactics to frustrate the implementation of a treaty on a critical national security matter.
I have to say that stands in stark contrast to the reasoned and constructive criticisms, questions and suggestions from Members in other parties, and indeed from Cross Benchers. We have engaged with those in good faith at every stage, and we will continue to do so. This is on the official Opposition, because their amendment is not only unnecessary; it is toying with our national security. It is only right that we take time to consider the next steps on programming, because we remain confident that this treaty is the best way forward.
The Lords will consider the Commons amendments in due course, and that will be announced in the usual way. The Government are committed to the deal that protects the joint UK-US base on Diego Garcia. Some have sought to sabotage the process through procedural motions and parliamentary stunts. We, instead, are focused on delivering this Bill to protect our national security.
Priti Patel
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. 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. 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.
Stephen Doughty
I did think that perhaps the right hon. Lady might have something more, but the tone, the braying and the noise reflect a simple political stunt from the Conservatives, which is deeply regretful when we are talking about such important matters of national security.
The right hon. Lady asks specifically about the US-UK exchange of notes. I am genuinely surprised about that, because 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.
Perhaps the Conservatives have only just clocked on to the need to update the UK-US agreement, but the Minister in the other place answered the noble Lord Callanan’s question on 22 December:
“Talks are ongoing to update the UK-US Exchange of Letters on the operation of the Diego Garcia Base.”
We have been clear about that throughout, so presenting this as some sort of gotcha and saying that we have not looked at the law is absolute nonsense. Frankly, it is deeply, deeply irresponsible.
We have made excellent progress towards finalising an updated UK-US agreement. For the record—because the Conservatives will not have looked at any of the history of this—the UK-US agreement was updated in 1972 and 1976, twice in 1987, and in 1999, so this is a regular process. We have had to update it, for a range of reasons, in the past. We were always clear about the need to put in place the necessary domestic and international legal processes to deal with this matter. The idea that this is something new, or some sort of gotcha, is simply for the birds.
The right hon. Lady asks about the contact with the United States. We remain engaged with the United States on a daily basis on matters relating to our national security. We will continue to engage with it on this important matter and on the importance of the deal to secure US and UK interests, and allay any concerns, as we have done throughout this process. There is nothing new in that, and it is absolutely right that we do so.
The right hon. Lady’s claims about China were simply rubbish. I am really surprised that the Conservatives continue to play these shocking party political games.
Dan Carden (Liverpool Walton) (Lab)
I am sorry that I am the only Labour Back Bencher who wants to speak. I have huge respect for my hon. Friend, and I fear that I am not going to say anything he particularly likes. I have followed this matter as closely as possible, and I have gone along with the Government up to this point, but it has been against my instincts. I still cannot understand exactly what we are doing here. International agreements do not protect us against our enemies or our allies; sovereignty does. I genuinely think that the people we represent will be asking, “Why can the Prime Minister not step forward, assert sovereignty over these islands, and make it clear that we have the military defence to defend them?”
Stephen Doughty
My hon. Friend has perhaps not been in for some of the previous debates on this, but I have set out why on a number of occasions. [Interruption.] Again, there is a lot of noise from the Conservatives, but they knew the problem here. They knew the risk to the operations of the base, which is why they engaged in 11 rounds of negotiations. I say again that the operations of this base were under threat, and we are not willing to play roulette with our national security. We therefore put in place the necessary steps to protect—and this is the crucial thing—the operations of that base, and our ability to carry them out fully in the way they are today, from the threats to it that existed. They put our national security—
Stephen Doughty
The hon. Member asks what the threats are. I have set those out on many occasions in this House. What is more, we have secured better protections in this deal than the Conservatives attempted to negotiate, including the buffer zone and the protections in relation to foreign forces on the outer islands. The priority for us has been securing our national security and the operation of this base for us and our allies.
Calum Miller (Bicester and Woodstock) (LD)
The Liberal Democrats have argued consistently that the Chagossians’ right to self-determination should be honoured, so even at this eleventh hour I ask the Government to reconsider their obstinate refusal to give Chagossians a voice over the homeland from which they were shamefully and violently removed. Will the Minister support the Liberal Democrat amendment in the other place that seeks to secure binding guarantees from the Government of Mauritius? The Government have also failed to address the concerns shared across this House about the vast sums of public money due to be sent to the Government of Mauritius over the lifetime of this agreement. We should not sign 99 cheques today that Mauritius can cash over the next century, so will the Minister support the Liberal Democrat amendment in the other place to give Parliament annual scrutiny of the payments made to Mauritius? In the light of the shifting US position, I encourage the Minister to consider soberly the approach the Government are taking, and I urge him to accept the Liberal Democrat amendment in the other place for a pause while the US position is clarified.
Stephen Doughty
The hon. Gentleman and his colleagues in the other place have given serious and considered reflections on this Bill a number of times. We have discussed them privately and responded to them in the other place, and I will certainly listen very closely to what he has said on a number of issues. Those include continuing to update both Houses on the cost issues and other matters, although I am sure he agrees that some of the wild figures we have heard quoted are simply not accurate or based in any kind of fact.
The hon. Gentleman raises the issue of the Chagossians. He knows that I and others have engaged with Chagossian communities on a number of occasions, and a wide range of views have of course been expressed by Chagossian communities. He knows that a referendum would not have resolved this long-standing issue between the UK and Mauritius, which required state-to-state negotiations. Indeed, the courts here, noting the conclusion of the International Court of Justice in the 2019 advisory opinion, have proceeded on the basis that the relevant right to self-determination in the context of BIOT was that of Mauritians rather than of Chagossians, and that remains the fact.
I appreciate what the hon. Gentleman says about Chagossian communities. He knows my commitment to them, to listening to the range of views and to trying to do the right thing, including acknowledging the deep wrongs of the past. We will continue to engage with him and his colleagues, and I would be very happy to meet him to discuss the amendments in the other place.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
The Minister is keeping up a brave face in public, but when he goes back to his colleagues he will have to tell them that the only contribution from his own Back Benches was to disagree with the Government’s position, and to do so bravely and articulately.
Does the Minister accept that the reason that this Bill may not go through is the work of the Conservative Opposition in both Houses of Parliament and the words of the leader of the Reform party in Mr Trump’s ear? Does that not show what can be achieved when two parties make common cause in a very worthwhile aim to achieve a vital objective?
Stephen Doughty
That comment speaks for itself, but I must say that I am absolutely astonished. Perhaps the right hon. Member is next on the defection list.
Sir Alec Shelbrooke (Wetherby and Easingwold) (Con)
Oh, grow up, you silly little man!
Stephen Doughty
Those are absolutely extraordinary comments. We have made very clear how this deal supports our national security interests and those of the US—
Mr Speaker
Order. I think the right hon. Member will want to withdraw that comment.
Stephen Doughty
Again, I think the tone of Opposition Members tells everybody—it tells the public—exactly what is going on here, which is political game playing. There were hundreds of votes the other day for ensuring that the Bill went through, because it has the consent of this House, and it is deeply irresponsible for Opposition Lords to be playing reckless games with our national security in the other place.
Richard Tice (Boston and Skegness) (Reform)
I will tell the Minister what is deeply irresponsible, and that is to give away our national sovereignty and damage our national security interests. That is what is deeply irresponsible, and thank heavens the US Administration have now realised that they were deliberately misled by our National Security Adviser and the Foreign Office—[Interruption.] Mr Speaker is listening intently. The National Security Adviser deliberately misled the American Administration, and they are angry. They are furious at what has gone on, and that is why they have changed their tune. Will the Minister confirm that if the Americans will not sign the update to this agreement, it is dead and buried? And who will resign?
Stephen Doughty
I am not going to take any lessons in national security from the fake patriots over there on the Opposition Benches and a party whose leader in Wales took bribes from Russia to promote narratives from the Kremlin. I think Conservative Members ought to be very careful about who they associate with.
Sir Andrew Mitchell (Sutton Coldfield) (Con)
The Minister, who is normally a reasonable fellow, always makes the point that the last Conservative Government started the negotiations. Does he now understand that, first, we were unable to conclude them and that, secondly, we would never have agreed or concluded the very one-sided deal that he and his colleagues have so naively and mistakenly agreed?
Stephen Doughty
Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would like to publish what costs the then Government were willing to pay for this deal.
Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)
In answer to a recent written question, a Defence Minister confirmed that
“all decisions on whether to approve foreign nations’ use of military bases in the UK for operational purposes considers the legal basis and policy rationale for any proposed activity.”
Can the Minister confirm that this commitment on the use of military bases in the UK by allies such as the US also applies to the military base at Diego Garcia?
Stephen Doughty
I am afraid that I might need to write to the hon. Gentleman with the detail on that very specific point, but I can assure him that our operation of military bases, whether alone or with allies, is always in accordance with international law. That is why we have followed the process that we have in updating the different pieces of legislation and other agreements that need to be updated.
Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)
When did the Minister first learn that the United States could effectively veto this agreement with Mauritius?
Stephen Doughty
I do not really understand the premise of the question. We have always been clear that we would work closely with our key defence and security ally the United States in securing the base on Diego Garcia. We have set out on a number of occasions the processes by which we would need to bring this treaty into force. There is simply no gotcha moment here. This has been clear, and it was made clear to those in the other place, but perhaps Members have not been reading the answers to the questions.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)
Is it not clear that the Minister, who is normally very benign, is now rather tetchy? If he was so sure of what he says, why did he not make a statement rather than be dragged to the Floor of the House by the Opposition? When the previous Foreign Secretary made the clear statement that, if the US says no, this deal is off, was he referring to the 1966 arrangements or was he just doing it off the cuff?
Stephen Doughty
We have always been clear that we would work closely with the United States to put in place the agreements to protect our national security and the operations on Diego Garcia. That is exactly what we have done. That is exactly what this Bill and this deal secures. I have set out clearly the importance of updating the exchange of notes. That has been clear throughout and it was made clear in the other place before Christmas. It has been made clear on a number of occasions. Really, there is nothing new here.
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)
Does the Minister acknowledge that, ever since the brutal removal of Chagossians from their homes in the 1970s and 1980s, their one unifying factor has been their determination and desire to return? Will he also confirm that international law indicates that the Chagos islands—both the archipelago and Diego Garcia—should be, under decolonisation statute, handed over to Mauritius, and that the only way of guaranteeing the right of return of Chagos islanders is for the House to accept the treaty that the Government have negotiated, which is supported by the Chagos Refugees Group, largely based in Mauritius and the Seychelles, and some of the Chagos islanders who live in this country. [Interruption.] Of course there is debate—nothing wrong with that—but this guarantees a right of return.
Stephen Doughty
We have been clear about that on a number of occasions. The right hon. Gentleman sets out very many important aspects of the history of this matter, and importantly puts on record the views of a range of other Chagossian groups who speak in support of the treaty and in support of the deal, primarily because it gives them the best chance to be able to resettle on the outer islands. We continue to support them on that measure, and we will continue to engage with all Chagossian communities—even, of course, those who disagree with the deal—to ensure that their needs and concerns are heard both in this country and internationally. That is also why we are capitalising the Chagossian trust fund.
Dame Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)
I think it is unprecedented at such an event for only one Government Back Bencher to speak, and the hon. Member for Liverpool Walton (Dan Carden) very bravely spoke against the deal. It is very important that the sovereignty of these islands remains British. That was highlighted in the Labour manifesto, which stated:
“Defending our security also means protecting the British Overseas Territories…Labour will always defend their sovereignty and right to self-determination.”
May I suggest a gentle down ramp for the Minister, for whom I have a lot of admiration, which is simply to just not find the time in the other place to progress things and allow Prorogation to gently wash this particular piece of proposed legislation out to sea?
Stephen Doughty
We have been clear throughout that the national security of our country comes first—and the national security of our allies and partners—which is why the previous Government were engaging to do a deal. They recognised the threat to the operations of the base. We concluded that deal. We have a deal that secures the future operations on Diego Garcia well into the next century. That is the most important thing in this whole process.
Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)
Unusually, the Minister has resorted to bluster today, accusing those of us who are opposed to the treaty of being “irresponsible” and “toying with” the security of the country. Does he not accept that it is the Government who are toying with the security of this country by ignoring the views of the Americans who use the Diego Garcia base, the fears of the Chagossians and the drain on public finances? Are the Government not using their majority and their Members as pawns to push through a deal that they know is wrong, unfair and dangerous for the country?
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.
Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Reform)
When the historians write about this period of British history, those who have engineered this betrayal of British sovereignty over the King’s islands, along with the complete betrayal of the loyal British-Chagossian people, will not come out of it too well. I ask the Minister, even at this late stage, to review this shameful policy and give the Chagossian people—whom he did not even mention in his reply to the shadow Foreign Secretary—the same right of self-determination that we afford to all other British overseas territories. Why are the Chagossians treated differently to everybody else?
Stephen Doughty
With the greatest of respect, as the hon. Member well knows, I have regularly referred to Chagossian communities, and I have engaged with and met them on many occasions—even in opposition, before I became a Minister. I have deep respect for them, including those members of the communities who disagree with me. I simply cannot take anything seriously from the hon. Member, when he has joined a party that had such links to Russian money coming into its leader in Wales.
Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)
Last time I checked, there were 404 Labour MPs. Why does the Minister think that his Whips could not come up with a single Back Bencher to come to the Chamber and support his position today?
Stephen Doughty
Because they see this for what it is, which is simply party political game playing. Games are being played with our national security in the other place in a way that is deeply reckless and irresponsible.
Mike Wood (Kingswinford and South Staffordshire) (Con)
The Minister did not answer the question that the shadow Foreign Secretary asked, but it is inconceivable that Foreign Office Ministers will not have had discussions with their American counterparts about this issue over the last week. Can the Minister tell us whether it is still the Government’s position that US opposition to the treaty is purely about Greenland?
Stephen Doughty
As I have said many times, we continue to engage with the United States every day, as we have throughout the process, and that will continue.
Dr Luke Evans (Hinckley and Bosworth) (Con)
It is a surprise to see the Minister so ratty and full of bluster, so I am going to ask him a technical question that I would appreciate his answer to. We have talked about the 1966 UK-US exchange of notes; the question is whether the Government can go ahead with the Chagos deal without the US. Where do the Government stand? Does the deal have to have the US’s blessing, or can the Government do it without that blessing, and with no change or negotiation of the 1966 contract?
Stephen Doughty
Again, I am slightly baffled by the question, because I answered it right at the beginning when the shadow Foreign Secretary asked me. I will read out my answer again. I said that we had been consistently clear 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. Indeed, that was very much the tenor of the answer that was given to Lord Callanan in the other place.
Ben Obese-Jecty (Huntingdon) (Con)
Last week we had a discussion about the cost of this deal, and I asked the Minister whether he would confirm the figure of £34.7 billion from the Government Actuary’s Department. He did not give me a direct answer, but later in the debate he confirmed that it was a nominal amount, not adjusted for inflation or the social time preference rate. With that in mind, will the Minister give the House the most accurate assessment he can of the true figure for the total cost of the deal, adjusted for inflation and the social time preference rate?
Stephen Doughty
The hon. Member asks an important question. The Government were clear about the forecast costs when they signed the deal, which were that the average cost per year was £101 million and the net present value was £3.4 billion. As I made clear the other day, forecast costs are, of course, forecasts; we expect any number to change over time, in particular to reflect things such as the Office for Budget Responsibility forecast inflation rate, which was updated in November 2025. I mentioned that the Treasury was updating the methodology for the social time preference rate. We are not going to keep recalculating every day, but at the time when the treaty was published we were very clear and gave a lot of information; we have given answers on this issue on many occasions and will continue to keep the House updated in the usual way.
David Reed (Exmouth and Exeter East) (Con)
The former Foreign Secretary said very explicitly last year that if the United States does not like this deal, it will not go ahead. The US does not like this deal; it has been very explicit on that. Can the Minister tell us whether the now Deputy Prime Minister was telling the truth when he made those comments?
Stephen Doughty
We have been very clear that the agreement we have struck is vital for protecting our national security and guaranteeing the long-term future of this vital base for both the United Kingdom and the United States, which had been under threat. I have referenced the many comments from across the United States Administration. We continue to engage with the United States every day, making clear the very important parts of the deal that protect its security and ours, and we will continue to have such conversations.
Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)
I hold in my hand the explanatory notes that accompany the Bill. There are extensive sections on historical background and legal background. Nowhere within those sections is there any reference to the 1966 treaty. Why is that? I have two specific questions for the Minister. First, does he accept that the 1966 treaty—or notes, as he calls it—is extant? Secondly, is it capable of being altered unilaterally?
Stephen Doughty
Of course it is extant, Mr Speaker. It is an arrangement between ourselves and the United States. It has been updated on a number of occasions, which I have listed. As I have said, we have been clear 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, and put in place arrangements on the environment, maritime security and migration. I am staggered that some on the Opposition Benches have only just clocked this; we have been aware of it and we engage with the United States every single day. That was made clear even before Christmas to the noble Lord Callanan in response to the question he asked my noble Friend Baroness Chapman. Again, this deal secures the base for the operations of ourselves and the United States, and we will continue to engage with the United States on a daily basis on it.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Minister for his answers. He and I share concerns on the issue on human rights, and I want to ask a question about that. As the chairperson of the all-party parliamentary group for international freedom of religion or belief, I am very aware of the human rights concerns that exist, including on the repression of personal expression, and reports of concerns for the rights of children and minorities. This leads me to again ask the Government to reconsider their strategy, not simply because our national security is at risk, the partnership with our closest allies is being strained and Chagossian citizens are expressing their opposition, but owing to the fact that we are handing over these people to be ruled under a cloud. Will the Minister confirm that the Government have fully considered the human rights concerns involving the Mauritian Government and are content to continue despite those worrying reports?
Stephen Doughty
As always, I have deep respect for the issues the hon. Gentleman raises in this place, particularly when it comes to individuals’ human rights and liberties. We have engaged extensively with the Chagossian communities and have heard a range of views. There are a number of groups that are very strongly in favour of this deal and some that are opposed to it. I respect that; there will always be disagreements on this issue. We have worked very closely to ensure that their needs are at the heart of this deal, whether that is through the trust fund or the clarificatory statements we have been able to secure from the Mauritian Government on the way the trust fund will operate to support Chagossian communities here. The hon. Gentleman can absolutely be assured that I remain seized of these issues, as do other Ministers, and they will continue to form a part of our engagement as the deal goes forward.
International Day of Education
Stephen Doughty Excerpts(6 days, 18 hours ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Stephen Doughty)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Ms Vaz. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Southgate and Wood Green (Bambos Charalambous) for securing this debate ahead of the UN’s International Day of Education. It is a topic close to my heart, as the son of a primary school teacher and a youth worker, and having engaged in a number of educational initiatives myself over many years, including teaching English one summer in Ukraine, which I will come back to. I thank hon. Members for their sincere and passionate contributions on this crucial issue.
Of course, education is also important to us all in our own constituencies. The Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for South Devon (Caroline Voaden), spoke of a number of the issues around education in the UK. While I am, of course, hugely proud of schools and educational institutions in my own communities in Cardiff South and Penarth, and of the investment from the Welsh Labour Government into new schools and a new further education college there—and proud of many other aspects—we are largely talking today about international efforts on education.
Such efforts include the very powerful examples that the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Lincoln Jopp) just raised. I visited Afghanistan at the very same time that he was serving gallantly there—I thank him for his service at that time—because, under the last Labour Government, I served as an adviser in the former Department for International Development and worked on Afghanistan policy. Indeed, I worked on many of those issues, including the ways that we tried to support girls’ education in Afghanistan in particular back then, and I have been to many of the places that the hon. Gentleman described.
I also thought about that context today, not only for the people of Afghanistan, tragically, and particularly those young girls, but for the young people I engaged with just last week, in a live video conference linking up Stratford Manor primary school in east London with a school in Kyiv. That was part of the school twinning programme under the 100-year partnership, which is now reaching up to 300 schools. It was really powerful to speak to those young children live on camera with the children in London. They told us about the massive bombardment they had faced the night before in and around their schools and homes in Kyiv, thanks to Russia’s barbarism. They were lucky to be able to join us at that moment because most of the time they have no electricity or heating at their school. The stark challenges faced around the world by children who deserve education are very clear to me, whether that is in Gaza, Sudan or many of the other locations that have been mentioned.
Stephen Doughty
I will make some progress, then potentially take some interventions later.
I previously worked in the international development sector for a Christian international development charity, World Vision, and for Oxfam, and have engaged with many educational programmes around the world. I have seen the real difference made by not only UK assistance, but international organisations and the United Nations, and the excellent charities that we have here in this country.
Many Members reflected on the important work of the British Council and our scholarship programmes. I have done a lot of work with Chevening scholars and Marshall scholars, among others, as well as Commonwealth scholars, of course. I am really proud that this Government have taken us back into the Erasmus+ programme and its opportunities for international exchange and engagement. It is crucial for young people in Britain, but also for those long-standing partnerships that make us strong and understood, and speak to our values in the world.
As advocates for global education, the Members present know all too well that the system is in serious crisis. UNESCO estimates that every $1 invested in education and youth skills in developing countries generates $10 to $15 in economic growth. Education has also been central to reducing inequality and empowering women and girls. We know its impact, yet 272 million children are out of school globally and 70% of children in lower-middle-income countries are unable to read and understand a basic text by 10. That figure rises to 90% in sub-Saharan Africa. That has to change.
With better research and evidence on what works, a range of different interventions and partners and countries working together, we can make a difference, particularly through taking on board new technologies and new ways of accessing the curriculum and learning. We are part of that effort, building modern and respectful partnerships, as well as shifting from being a direct donor in many circumstances to acting as an investor and an adviser and convenor.
We will always retain our focus on reaching the most marginalised children who need and deserve quality education. For example, in Sierra Leone, we are working with the Government to build gender-based violence prevention and response, especially with regard to children with disabilities who face gender-based violence. We are helping partner Governments to finance and manage their own education systems more effectively, and we are using world-class evidence to improve teaching in the classroom to ensure that children are learning.
Our people and our expertise and the great strength we have in education in this country means that we are trusted advisers to partner Governments. We have funded pioneering research, particularly on the issue of foundational learning referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Southgate and Wood Green and many others. We are a founding partner of the global Coalition for Foundational Learning, working closely with UNICEF, UNESCO, the World Bank, the Gates Foundation and other Governments. We are a founding member of the Global Partnership for Education. We were at the forefront of setting up Education Cannot Wait, which has done important work. We are continuing to deliver through a range of multilateral investments.
We have had to take tough decisions, which have been referenced by a number of Members. We took the tough decision to reduce our official development assistance spending to 0.3% of GNI by 2027 so that we could respond to pressing security challenges and geopolitical circumstances with which Members are only too familiar. With less funding, we need to do things differently. We have to focus on the greatest impact and we need to target funding on the people who need it the most.
Stephen Doughty
I will not, if that is okay.
We are focusing on five areas: first, improving learning outcomes for all children, particularly targeting girls and the most disadvantaged; secondly, helping partner Governments to strengthen their education systems; thirdly, increasing the scale and sources of financing, so that Governments can access financing to fund education reforms; fourthly, safeguarding education in emergencies and protracted crises, including those affected by conflict and climate change; and finally, driving the reform of multilateral education organisations. I will say a little more about that conflict work in a moment.
We are leading on our own strategy. On 20 January, the Government announced our new international education strategy, which builds on our strong leadership, skills and expertise. Education already contributes more than £32 billion a year to the UK economy. Our strategy sets out a plan to increase that to £40 billion by 2030, generating jobs and skills here in the UK as well. We have expertise, leadership and commitment. I think Members understand that we are in a different circumstance with regard to the funding, but we will continue to remain focused on these issues.
In my last few minutes, I want to turn to some of the points that hon. Members raised. My hon. Friend the Member for Southgate and Wood Green and many others asked about work in emergencies and protracted crises. We recognise that that is a huge challenge, and of course we are continuing to focus on it. We have committed a further £10 million for strategic partnerships on education in emergencies. We are of course the largest bilateral donor to the Global Partnership for Education, £5.6 million of which is earmarked for education and psychosocial support in Gaza and the west bank.
The situation in Afghanistan is of course absolutely tragic, but even there we continue to support the delivery of education through UNICEF, the International Rescue Committee and other partners, including the Afghanistan Resilience Trust Fund. We are continuing to try to work in those incredibly difficult circumstances, which are a tragedy for girls, in particular.
My hon. Friend raised foundational learning and asked about the Future of Development conference in May this year. The agenda is still being finalised for that, but we will update him and the House in due course. We are of course looking at new ways to generate resource in straitened circumstances. For example, our support for the International Finance Facility for Education has already unlocked $1 billion in additional education finance from multilateral development banks. That is very good value for money for the UK taxpayer, because $1 of cash invested there generally leverages in $7 of additional concessional finance.
I absolutely assure Members that we will continue to stay focused on the education of girls and those who are most marginalised and least likely to go to school. I agree that the British Council is an important partner, and it will of course help to deliver the international education strategy. I visited the British Council team in Kyiv—tragically, their offices were hit by one of the Russian strikes. Our funding to the British Council is still under discussion.
Of course, that international commitment is matched by our commitment to young people in this country. I mentioned the investment that we are putting in and the Government’s focus on this issue. It is not just about schools, in terms of teaching, facilities and curricula; it is also about ensuring that young people are in the best place to learn. That is why we have put 750 primary breakfast clubs in place and extended free school meals to half a million more children. I am incredibly proud of that work, which draws on the lessons we have learned from Wales.
We are proud of what we are doing on education in this country and internationally. These are changed financial circumstances, but we will continue to focus resource where we think it makes the biggest difference for the most marginalised communities, and we will leverage in support from other donors. I thank all Members for the sincerity of the points that they made today.
Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill
Stephen Doughty ExcerptsTuesday 20th January 2026
(1 week, 1 day ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill 2024-26 View all Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Commons Consideration of Lords Amendments as at 20 January 2026 - (20 Jan 2026)
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Stephen Doughty)
I beg to move, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 1.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
With this it will be convenient to discuss:
Lords amendment 5, and Government motion to disagree.
Lords amendment 6, and Government motion to disagree.
Lords amendment 4.
Stephen Doughty
National security must always be the first priority of any Government, and that is all the more important during these uncertain times. This Government have always and will always act to ensure the safety and security of the British people. That is precisely why we have agreed the Diego Garcia military base deal and why we need to pass the Bill, so the treaty can come into effect. The deal secures the vital military asset for future generations. It allows the base to continue to operate as it has done for decades to come, protecting UK national security and regional stability, and that of our allies.
As part of this agreement, the Government have negotiated robust and extensive provisions to protect the base that will categorically prevent our adversaries from compromising the base or interfering with the vital protection the base gives to both the United Kingdom and the United States.
Several hon. Members rose—
Stephen Doughty
I will make progress and then I will take some interventions—certainly from the hon. Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare) and the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir Andrew Mitchell).
The UK will never compromise on our national security, and as we have repeatedly made clear, the agreement we struck is vital for protecting it; it guarantees the long-term future of a base that is vital for the United Kingdom and the United States and our allies, and which had been under threat. Crucially, the deal secures the operations of the joint US-UK base on Diego Garcia for generations. It has been publicly welcomed by key allies, including our Five Eyes partners, and key international partners including India, Japan and South Korea.
Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)
Throughout the passage of this Bill, the Minister has prayed in aid the support of the United States of America and the wider Five Eyes community. This morning the President of the United States dropped what could be described as a depth charge on that and made very clear what he thinks. What are the House and the Government to read of what the Minister says was the American position on the Bill and what it appears that its commander-in-chief is saying today?
Stephen Doughty
We engage with the United States—our closest defence and security partner—on a range of issues, including this one, every single day, and we continue to do so. The hon. Member asks an important question. The United States and President Trump welcomed this deal in the spring, and when we discussed in detail why the agreement was needed, the strong protections that it includes and the vital security it provides for Diego Garcia, the Administration endorsed the agreement as a “monumental achievement” following a thorough inter-agency process in the United States. The hon. Member will know how serious that is.
In May the United States Secretary of State said,
“The Trump Administration determined that this agreement secures the long-term, stable, and effective operation of the joint US-UK military facility at Diego Garcia”.
We will of course have discussions with the Administration in the coming days to remind them of the strength of this deal and how it secures the base for the United Kingdom and the United States. We will continue those discussions on many levels.
Sir Andrew Mitchell (Sutton Coldfield) (Con)
Following the excellent point made by my hon. Friend the Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare), does the Minister realise that the President of the United States, following his perspicacious comments last night, has had a chance to examine the deal in full? Does he therefore understand why the last Conservative Government, of which I was a part—indeed, doing the job the Minister is doing now—would never ever have got this deal?
Stephen Doughty
As I have said in this House many times, the last Government—the right hon. Gentleman knows this, as he was part of that Government—started this deal because they recognised that there was a serious challenge to the operation of the base, which is critical for our national security. [Interruption.] No, we have heard that claim made multiple times, but it is clear from the record of the Government of the former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Richmond and Northallerton (Rishi Sunak), that they continued those negotiations right into the run-up to the general election in 2024. They engaged in 11 rounds of negotiations because they recognised, as did we, the very serious risks to the operation of that base.
Several hon. Members rose—
Sir Oliver Dowden (Hertsmere) (Con)
The Minister makes an important point. The key thing about the negotiations is that they were predicated on the United States’ concern about the continuing operation of the base in the context of concerns around international law. The position set out by the President of the United States last night is that he is not concerned about this—in fact, he is concerned about the deal the other way around. Moreover, I do not think that any of us would think that there is a concern around international law vis-à-vis the President of the United States. We are talking about two material changes. Surely in the face of these material changes, now is the time to pause and reconsider the implementation of the treaty. The circumstances have changed.
Stephen Doughty
The circumstances have not changed. Again, we see this collective amnesia on behalf of former Cabinet Ministers on the other side, who, I remind the right hon. Member, engaged in 11 rounds of negotiations. They did that because they knew of the very serious security and operational reasons affecting the base. I refer him to the Secretary of War, who said at the time:
“Diego Garcia is a vital military base for the US. The UK’s very important deal with Mauritius secures the operational capabilities of the base and key US national security interests in the region. We are confident that the base is protected for many years ahead.”
Several hon. Members rose—
Stephen Doughty
I have taken a number of interventions, so I will move on.
The deal had to be done because the base was under threat. Courts had already begun making decisions that weakened our position, and without the deal, as I have said many times, we faced the prospect of further wide-ranging litigation that could have rendered the base inoperable. Let me be clear, as I have been on many occasions: this is not just about the legal position; it is about the operation of the base.
Without a treaty and a secure footing, legally binding provisional measures could have been imposed within weeks that would have undermined base operations. Our ability to protect the electromagnetic spectrum from interference, to ensure access to the base by air and sea and to patrol the area around the base would have been eroded, and everything from overflight clearances to securing contractors could have been affected. That would have driven costs through the roof, deterred future investment and degraded the facility, and our adversaries would have jumped at the chance to disrupt the base—for example, by establishing outposts on the outer islands—with a guise of legality on their side. It is for all those reasons that the previous Government, many of whose former Cabinet Ministers are sitting on the Opposition Benches, undertook 11 rounds of detailed negotiations. It is also why they made critical concessions on the principles of sovereignty and direct payment.
Several hon. Members rose—
Stephen Doughty
I have taken a number of interventions, so I would like to make some progress. I will happily take further interventions later.
Graham Stringer
I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. I have heard him in this Chamber a number of times say that the United States supported this deal. The President of the United States clearly does not support it any more. I would have thought that that was the case for a pause, but I would also have thought that something else that has changed was the case for a pause: the resolution of the United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination has also asked for the Bill not to go forward. Does the Minister not think that those two things together mean that we should pause?
Stephen Doughty
We will not pause in defending our national security interests and those of our allies. We will do the right things to keep our national security and the operations of the base working as they have done for many decades. Despite the claims from the Opposition Benches, I reiterate that it is a matter of public record that, on February 2024, the former Prime Minister spoke with his Mauritian counterpart to confirm his commitment to negotiations, which continued until the general election. It was simply not credible to try to hang on, hope for the best and endanger an asset that is vital to our national security. The reality is that the previous Government failed to secure a deal. They failed to secure protections for the outer islands, for example. When it came to a matter of critical security, they did not deliver, so I am proud that we have secured a deal that is able to do those very things.
Paul Holmes (Hamble Valley) (Con)
I thank the Minister for giving way; every time he comes to the House, he is most courteous. He mentioned the example of the former Prime Minister, but the former Prime Minister stated very clearly that the negotiations had to result in a “mutually beneficial” agreement. That did not happen, and therefore the Government ended those negotiations. Today, this Government are expecting us to vote on Third Reading for a deal that our greatest ally—an ally that the Minister has advocated for through this whole process—has turned its back on. How can he expect the House to do that when the circumstances have fundamentally changed?
Stephen Doughty
I have explained the comments of the US Secretary of State, the Secretary of War and the US Government, as well as the President’s previous comments. This is about our Five Eyes partners as well; it is about Canada, Australia, New Zealand and our other key partners. They all understand the critical national security capabilities that the base provides. It is also about Japan and the Republic of Korea. The deal has also been welcomed by a number of our other overseas territories. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would discount their views, but we are not willing to do that. We are willing to deliver national security and the capabilities that our Five Eyes partners need.
Let me turn to the issue referenced in the Lords amendments. I want to answer the many genuine questions that have been asked by a number of hon. and right hon. Members on behalf of the Chagossians. We have secured a deal that protects the interests of the Chagossians. I know that there are a number of Members of this House who rightly care deeply about this issue and have done so for many years, but I am afraid to say that there are others who have picked up the mantle for pure political game playing and who fail to recognise that there is a genuine range of opinions within Chagossian communities; there are some who oppose this deal and there are many who support it, and that simply has not been recognised by many. We deeply regret—I reiterate this—the way in which Chagossians have been treated by successive Governments in the past. That is why we are committed to a future relationship that is built on trust.
The treaty provides the only viable path to resettlement on the outer islands of the archipelago. We know that that is a matter of critical importance to many Chagossians. Following the Government’s efforts, Mauritius has confirmed that all Chagossians who were born on the archipelago and their children will be eligible for Mauritian citizenship and for participation in a future resettlement programme, regardless of where they live. The Bill also preserves current British and British overseas territory citizenship, and the pathway to British citizenship for Chagossians, meaning that they will be able to hold both British nationality and Mauritian citizenship. In fact, as of April 2025, 94% of Chagossians with British nationality also have Mauritian citizenship.
Stephen Doughty
I give way on this issue to the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes).
Sir John Hayes
On that point, the Minister will be aware that the matter was debated at length in the Lords. Indeed, one of the amendments that we are considering deals precisely with the entitlements of the Chagossians. They were not involved in the negotiations at any stage, and they have made that clear. Why on earth would the Minister reject the Lords amendment, which simply says that they should have a defining say in their own future?
Stephen Doughty
With respect—Madam Deputy Speaker, you can correct me if I am wrong—it is a decision in relation to the engagement of financial privilege and the Standing Orders that means that those amendments are not for debate and will be disagreed with. That has been made clear by the Chair.
Working with Mauritius, we have also agreed the parameters for the operation of a Chagossian trust fund. On 12 December, the Mauritian Government approved legislation to establish the trust fund. That confirms, again, in response to many reasonable opinions expressed both in the other place and by those on the Opposition Benches—
Sir John Hayes
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The Chair made it clear at the outset that the amendments that deal with matters of finance were inappropriate to be considered here, for obvious reasons. I understood, however, that the amendments that we were debating, including those that reference the Chagossians, do not concern finance in particular. Can you clarify the matter?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
The Deputy Speaker who was in the Chair before me read out the statement, and I will do so again for clarity. Having given careful consideration to Lords amendments 2 and 3, Mr Speaker is satisfied that they would impose a charge on the public revenue that has not yet been authorised by this House. In accordance with paragraph (3) of Standing Order No. 78, the amendments will therefore be deemed to be disagreed to and are not subject to debate.
We cannot keep having the same discussion again and again. This is a very substantial debate and many people hope to speak, so let us proceed as fast as we can.
Stephen Doughty
Thank you for clarifying that, Madam Deputy Speaker.
In parallel with the other measures, we have established a contact group to give Chagossians a greater say in UK Government support to their communities and we are in the process of enhancing that group, as Baroness Chapman committed to do in the other place. Thanks to the work we have done and the reasonable concerns raised across the House, the Chagossian trust fund will be operated for Chagossians by Chagossians. There will be a Chagossian majority on the board, which will include a UK-based representative and a Chagossian chair. Those reasonable concerns have been raised in the course of the debates and we are trying to address them.
Stephen Doughty
I need to make progress, as Madam Deputy Speaker has asked me to be conscious of time. I will come back for further interventions.
Before moving on to discuss the specific amendments, I express my thanks to the noble Lords for their tireless efforts and to the many noble peers who scrutinised and supported the Bill. Lords amendment 4 was tabled by the Government, and I thank Lord Lansley for his helpful conversation and collaboration on the topic. The amendment will change the parliamentary procedure applicable to the delegated power in clause 6. With that amendment, all instruments made using that power will be subject to the negative procedure. Previously, no parliamentary procedure applied unless the power was used to amend, repeal or revoke Acts of Parliament or statutory instruments made under them. The amendment makes it clear that the Government are prepared to work with those who engage in genuine, constructive dialogue, rather than those who rely on political point scoring, to achieve meaningful compromise.
Turning to the other amendments made in the other place, I make it clear that the Government are thankful for all the scrutiny and are willing to engage with challenge. However, the other amendments are either already provided for or not necessary, or they simply make political points and play games with our national security, so we cannot accept them.
Lords amendment 1 would amend clause 1 to prevent the Bill and the treaty from entering into force until the Government had sought to renegotiate the termination clauses to include the base becoming unusable due to environmental degradation. That is unnecessary and I shall set out why. First, limiting the circumstances in which the treaty can be terminated protects the UK’s interests and those of the United States, which has invested heavily in the base. In line with the United States’ wishes, the previous Conservative Government agreed to limit termination to two grounds, both of which are in UK control, and this Government have secured that—
Graham Stuart
The Minister mentions the United States’ wishes, and he appears to be presenting the case that the United States remains in the position that it was in previously, despite what President Trump said last night. The Deputy Prime Minister said in February:
“If President Trump doesn’t like the deal, the deal will not go forward”.
Last night, President Trump said that he did not like the deal. Is it still going forward, or is the Minister suggesting that President Trump did not mean what he said last night?
Stephen Doughty
I have already answered that point. As I said, discussions will continue with the US Administration in the coming days, as they have done throughout the process. We will remind them of the strength of this deal, allay concerns and, of course, emphasise how it secures the base for both the United Kingdom and the United States. We work together on these matters. As the Speaker of the House of Representatives set out this morning, it is important that we work together on all matters of national security.
Stephen Doughty
Let me make some progress on the issue of termination.
As I have said, limiting the circumstances in which the treaty can be terminated protects the UK’s interests and those of the US. The Government have secured that procedure.
Secondly, I reassure the House that, given the importance of the base, we are taking necessary steps to protect it from environmental damage. Working with the United States, again in partnership, we already have extensive measures in place, such as the coastal erosion programme, and scientific studies show that natural land loss over the past 50 years has been less than 1%. That said, we recognise the concerns of Lord Craig and Lord Houghton, and I would like to reassure them and Members of this House that the international law of treaties allows for the termination of a treaty when it becomes impossible for a treaty to be performed as a result of
“the permanent disappearance or destruction of an object indispensable for the execution of the treaty”.
Baroness Chapman set out the legal position clearly in the other place.
For further reassurance, since that debate we have consulted Mauritius to verify that it shares our assessment. I am happy to update the House that this has been confirmed in writing to the Government. Mauritius is clear on the point, both as a matter of international law and in its domestic law. We welcome that confirmation by Mauritius and trust that it will assure Members in this House and in the other place who share this concern that such an amendment is unnecessary.
Stephen Doughty
I give way to the former Chair of the Intelligence and Security Committee.
Sir Julian Lewis
The Minister seems to be putting an awful lot of faith in the good intent and reliability of the Mauritian Government. They are a close ally of China, which, he might remember, gave us cast-iron guarantees about the future of the Hongkongers once the lease on Hong Kong was given up. I gently remind him that the 2024 Labour manifesto, entitled “Change”, stated:
“Defending our security also means protecting the British Overseas Territories and Crown Dependencies, including the Falklands and Gibraltar. Labour will always defend their sovereignty and right to self-determination.”
Can he look the Chagossians in the Gallery in the eye and tell them that that is what the Government are now doing?
Stephen Doughty
I have great respect for the right hon. Gentleman and his role, and we have had many good conversations, but it is extremely unhelpful to, and unwanted by, residents in Gibraltar and the Falkland Islands that this false comparison keeps being made—
Stephen Doughty
Absolutely, and we stand by that commitment to defend the Falklands and Gibraltar. That is exactly what we have been doing and will continue to do. I gently say that I fully recognise and respect the fact that there are many Chagossian groups who disagree with this deal as well as many who agree with it. Unfortunately, some of the comments in this place have represented only one side of that argument. It is our duty as a Government to listen to all those groups and to engage appropriately with them.
Lords Amendments 5 and 6 both relate to the costs of the treaty—
Stephen Doughty
I am not going to take any more interventions at the moment. I need to make some progress.
Lords amendment 5 would require the Secretary of State to publish the total real-terms costs of payments made under the treaty, including the methodology used by the Government Actuary’s Department and the Treasury. I confess that it brings me some satisfaction to learn that the Opposition have eventually accepted the importance of quoting financial figures for a 99-year treaty in real terms. They have always known that it is misleading to ignore the impact of inflation—a pound today is not worth the same as a pound in 99 years’ time—and now at long last they seem to have seen the light. Let us see whether, in today’s debate, we can do away with the deliberately and misleadingly inflated figures that have been bandied about again by the shadow Foreign Secretary during questions today, and start discussing the financial elements of the treaty with accuracy and transparency.
Several hon. Members rose—
Stephen Doughty
I will carry on, and then I will take the intervention from the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Ben Obese-Jecty), who has raised these issues before.
For all the good intentions, I am afraid that Lords amendment 5 is unnecessary. We have been clear about the costs of the deal from the moment of signature. We published full details of the financial arrangements the very same day the treaty was signed, including in the financial exchange of letters and the explanatory memorandum laid before Parliament. If Opposition Members are having difficulty finding where that is, it is on pages 9 and 10 of the explanatory memorandum. The documents set out the payment schedule and the confirmed amounts at that time.
The methodology is clear: the average annual payment has been calculated using forecast inflation figures from the Office for Budget Responsibility. We used the forecast GDP deflator, which is published regularly. That generated the real value of the payments, which is the valueusb adjusted for inflation to create a fair comparison with other costs. Members will recall that this equates to less than a quarter of 1% of the Defence budget and compares favourably to the cost of comparable overseas facilities. I have mentioned the facility that France pays for in Djibouti. This is an immensely more valuable facility. It is priceless for our defence capabilities and those of our allies.
Sean Woodcock (Banbury) (Lab)
Can the Minister confirm that the deal provides certainty and full operational use of the base for 99 years?
Stephen Doughty
Absolutely, I can confirm that the deal secures the base for us and our allies. It secures the crucial capabilities that benefit ourselves, the United States and, indeed, all our allies.
I am happy to further canter through the calculations. The net present value was established by discounting the real value of the sums due to be paid over the duration of the treaty using the social time preference rate, as set out in the Green Book. That adjusts for social time preference, which is a reflection of the value society attaches to present, as opposed to future, consumption. That has been used in the UK by Governments of all flavours since 2003.
Members will be aware that my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury announced a review of the social time preference rate shortly before Christmas. That follows a review of the Green Book last year. I do not know how that review will conclude, but I know that the Government used the correct methodology when the figures were published, and were clear and transparent in doing so, and we will continue to do so whichever way the review comes out.
Esther McVey
This evening, the Minister is trying to convince us to vote for this Chagos deal. The President of the United States says that the Government are handing over the island “FOR NO REASON WHATSOEVER”, so can he give us some reasons?
Stephen Doughty
With the greatest of respect to the right hon. Lady, I do not think she has been present in many of the other debates on this issue—she popped up here today to make these points. I have been clear and answered the question already, so I will not do so again.
Ben Obese-Jecty (Huntingdon) (Con)
I thank the Minister for giving way and for his detailed explanation of how the calculations have been made. The Government Actuary’s Department clearly stated that this deal would cost £34.7 billion. That figure was then confirmed by his colleague, the Minister for the Middle East, who said that all the figures had been ratified by the Government Actuary’s Department, but his colleague sitting next to him, the Minister for Defence Readiness and Industry, told me that that figure was inaccurate. Will the Minister therefore clarify how much this deal costs?
Stephen Doughty
We set out the costs clearly at the time, as I have done for the hon. Gentleman in the Chamber a number of times. What I will confirm is that they have been verified by the Government Actuary’s Department. The House of Commons Library has been through them and reached the same conclusion. The Office for Statistics Regulation has welcomed the Government’s approach and said that it is in line with intelligent transparency, and the Office for Budget Responsibility also confirmed separately to it that the discount rates were correct. I have given the hon. Gentleman four good reasons and the costs. However much Opposition Members bandy about the costs, it is simply unhelpful.
I will move on to the other amendments. Lords amendment 6 would introduce an ongoing estimates and supply scrutiny process for expenditure under the treaty, including parliamentary approval for future payments and supplementary estimates. The agreement has undergone intense scrutiny, and the treaty provides robust mechanisms for dispute resolution under article 14. It is normal practice for payments under treaties to be made under the prerogative power and charged on the Consolidated Fund under the authority of the Supply Acts. Furthermore, the amendment would infringe on the financial privilege of the Commons and affect the Commons’ arrangements for authorising expenditure. These are long-standing practices that members of the former Government will know. The same applied under them, and it applies under this Government, too.
Finally, subsection (4) would infringe on the prerogative power to make and unmake treaties. It is not wise to impose any immovable requirements about a hypothetical set of circumstances that might arise in the future. This provision risks requiring the Government to breach the UK’s obligations under a treaty. It is clearly preferable for all options to be open to a future Government, so that they can deal with whatever the future may bring and act in the UK’s best interests, taking into account all the circumstances.
I am conscious of your exhortations about time, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I know that a number of right hon. and hon. Members wish to speak. The previous Government recognised that there was a problem. They engaged in 11 rounds of negotiations, but failed to reach a deal that was in our interests and those of the United States. We secured this deal. It protects the base, and the interests of the United States and our Five Eyes partners.
Stephen Doughty
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. May I correct the record? The hon. Member for Spelthorne (Lincoln Jopp) says that there are not any veterans. I have served this country as an Army reservist, and I am very proud to have done so. We have many other Labour Members who have served and are veterans; they absolutely defend the national security of this country and have done so at many different stages. That comment is not accurate and needs to be corrected.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I thank—[Interruption.] Order. I can make a decision; I do not need any help. That was not exactly a point of order, Minister. It was much more of an intervention, which may have been taken by the Member who was about to rise to her feet. However, the Minister has got his point on the record. We need to move at a pace; otherwise, we will not get speakers in.
Stephen Doughty
With the leave of the House, I will close the debate. Hon. and right hon. Members have raised important questions and points during the debate. Once again, I must reiterate that for those who engage in genuine and constructive debate, the Government are willing to find compromise where that is reasonable and proper, and that debate is welcome, as it has been in the other place.
The deal sits at the cornerstone of the defence and security of both the United Kingdom and the United States. It plays a crucial role in defending our interests, our countries and our people and ensures that we remain equipped to face an increasingly complex and dangerous world.
I have to challenge one of the points that has been made repeatedly and falsely throughout the debate. We have heard the same nonsense that this deal puts the base at threat from Chinese interference. [Interruption.]
Madam Deputy Speaker
Order. There appear to be many side conversations taking place. If Members wish to leave the Chamber, they can do so. Otherwise, we should focus on what the Minister is saying.
Stephen Doughty
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.
I was referring to the claims about Chinese interference. I doubt that those on the Opposition Benches have actually seen or read the op-ed by the Chinese ambassador to Mauritius on 14 January criticising the Chagos deal, which again very much underlines the point that I have been repeatedly making.
Just last week, the United States military signed a new contract worth $85 million for base operating support services. Before the treaty was signed, it had been rolling over previous contracts due to the uncertainty, but because of the certainty provided by this deal, it has now entered into a new long-term contract, which delivers strength and certainty for the United States, the United Kingdom and our allies, because national security is the priority for all of us.
While securing our national security, we have taken steps throughout the Bill to ensure that we have the measures in place, including the full control of Diego Garcia; the 24-mile nautical buffer zone where nothing can be built or placed without our consent, meaning that we can protect our interests; a rigorous process to prevent activities on the wider islands—some over 100 nautical miles away—from disrupting base operations; a strict ban on foreign security forces on the outer islands, whether civilian or military, without UK consent; and a binding obligation to ensure that the base is never undermined. These are robust provisions, and they defend the national security of ourselves and our allies, including the United States.
Many important points have been raised about the Chagossian community. I absolutely acknowledge and respect the Chagossians who are here today. I also acknowledge and respect that there are many views within the Chagossian community. I was disappointed by the tone of the remarks from the hon. Member for Rutland and Stamford (Alicia Kearns), who I have good engagement with. I can tell her that I met Chagossians on 30 September 2024 and 3 October 2024. On 22 May 2025, she claimed that the former Foreign Secretary, the right hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy), had not met the Chagossians; in fact, he met them with me. On 2 September 2025, I was at the first meeting of the Chagossian contact group. Officials regularly engage with Chagossians. Indeed, I engaged with Chagossians long before I took this position as a Minister and did so in opposition, along with many hon. and right hon. Members, to listen to the range of views.
Several hon. Members rose—
Stephen Doughty
No, I will not give way. I am conscious of time—I need to respond to the points made.
Of course, many groups support the deal, including the Chagos Refugees Group, the Chagos Islanders Movement and the Seychelles Chagossian committee.
The shadow Foreign Secretary, the right hon. Member for Witham (Priti Patel), made many criticisms. We have heard and been through them a number of times. I remind her that, of course, it was her party that started the negotiations in the first place. She supported this when she was in government. The Conservatives have demonstrated absolute naked opportunism, ignoring the national security issues and jumping on the political bandwagon. They talk about defence and national security, but in 14 disastrous years in office their party hollowed out our armed forces. Our Government are investing at levels not seen since the cold war, and 85% of the negotiation rounds took place—
Madam Deputy Speaker
That is not a point of order. Can we prevent the debate from continuing in points of order? If colleagues wish to intervene, they can try to do so, and it is up to the Minister whether he wishes to respond to those interventions. We can keep going until 7.18 pm when the time will cut off.
Stephen Doughty
I was referring to an article published on 14 January by the Chinese ambassador to Mauritius.
The former Government had access to the same legal advice, the same security briefings and the same threat assessments as we do now, including on threats to the operations of this crucial base, and senior figures raised no objections in Parliament, filed no critical questions and voiced no concerns on social media. It is only after leaving government that they have done so. That is not principled opposition; it is opportunistic.
Many questions were raised about the finances. I must be clear that the higher figure of £34.7 billion that was released by the Government Actuary’s Department was a nominal amount and was not adjusted for inflation or the social time preference rate, so it is deeply misleading to cite that figure, given the changing value of money over time. A pound today is not worth the same as a pound tomorrow. Quite frankly, I am baffled at hearing these complaints about the finances, given the billions that the Conservatives wasted on defective personal protective equipment, the festival of Brexit and who knows what else.
There were some very sensible and I think legitimate questions raised about the costs. The Government have always sought to be transparent on these matters. We set out the forecasts at the time of publication, and the documents that we published at the time of the treaty set out that the net present value of the treaty was £3.4 billion, calculated using the Green Book methodology —I have set that out on many occasions before. Of course, I would expect forecasts to change over time, given the changes in the OBR’s forecast inflation rate and other matters. We were transparent then, and of course we will continue that transparency in the usual ways before the House. Indeed, the TaxPayers’ Alliance, no less, has confirmed that the use of a discount rate to give NPV is a standard concept in finance, and that it is reasonable for the Government to use an inflation assumption and a discounting rate to give an NPV of the cost. If we use its suggestion of 2.9%, the annual payments would be £96 million on average, which is £5 million less in today’s money than the Government’s forecast at the time of the treaty’s publication.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith
I am not going to pursue the Minister down that line—I did that last time—but I do want to ask a simple question. This morning, we had a very clear statement from the President of the United States. The Deputy Prime Minister was also clear previously when he said that if America says no, then this does not go ahead. Are his counsels in any way discussing or thinking about waiting to find out whether that view from the President today is clear and for good? In other words, will they then stop this Bill?
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.
Oral Answers to Questions
Stephen Doughty Excerpts(1 week, 1 day ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Uma Kumaran (Stratford and Bow) (Lab)
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Stephen Doughty)
We work closely with our international partners to deter and disrupt those responsible for malicious cyber-activity. To date, 42 international partners have supported UK activity to expose cyber-threats, and 74 countries are members of the counter ransomware initiative, led by the UK. In addition, 27 counties have publicly endorsed the UK and France’s Pall Mall code of practice, which aims to tackle the proliferation of cyber-intrusion tools.
Uma Kumaran
The Minister will remember that when the Russia-backed cyber-crime network Lockbit was smashed in 2024, it was the direct result of intensive collaboration between the United Kingdom, Europe and the United States. They worked together to defend Europe from Russia’s hybrid attacks, which seek to weaken our role in the world. Is that not a reminder that we are all safer, on both sides of the Atlantic, when we work together, and that we should never forget where the real threats to our national security come from?
Stephen Doughty
I wholeheartedly agree with my hon. Friend’s remarks. Indeed, they echo what we heard this morning from the Speaker of the US House of Representatives about working together as close allies and across NATO. It is good to welcome guests in Parliament today from the NATO Parliamentary Assembly, too.
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to raise this issue. As is evidenced by the 2024 Lockbit and 2025 Media Land sanctions packages, the UK works closely with key partners, and remains committed to using all available tools to defend against cyber-threats. Our co-ordination with Australia, the United States and other allies demonstrates to adversaries that we will not tolerate assaults on our public and private institutions and our democracies.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Minister for his comprehensive responses. On ransomware and what we are trying to do with technology, Northern Ireland leads the way on cyber-security, as does south-east England, but the technology is always advancing. The Minister has responsibility for ensuring that we are protected, but at the same time, we need to ensure that our technology moves forward, so that we can equal or outdo our enemies. Can the Minister give us an assurance that that will happen, and that Northern Ireland will be part of it?
Stephen Doughty
The hon. Member rightly extols the virtues and skills of the excellent workforce in Northern Ireland and across the UK on these issues. I have had the pleasure of meeting people from a number of cyber-security companies. We are doing all that we can to increase the skills chain, and to ensure that we stay steps ahead of our adversaries. We will not tolerate activity that hits consumers and individuals in the UK and risks our national security. We will work with others to defend this country.
Mr Andrew Snowden (Fylde) (Con)
Iran is a cyber-menace that is committing digital warfare against democracies around the world and its own people. Most recently, it has cut its own citizens off from the internet to hide the scale of its atrocities. Do the Government have any plans to use their cyber-capabilities to take on Tehran in its moment of weakness, and how they will prevent Tehran from evading tariffs by using cryptocurrency?
Stephen Doughty
It was perhaps an unexpected elevation, but I welcome the shadow Minister to his new role, and thank him for his important question on a very serious matter: the threat from our adversaries. He is right to point out Iran, but there are many others who are attempting to damage our national security and hit consumers and individuals in the UK. He will understand that I will not go into operational details on any matter relating to our cyber-defences, but he can be assured that we keep the activities of our adversaries closely in mind, and we are doing all we can to defend this country against all threats, wherever they come from.
Blake Stephenson (Mid Bedfordshire) (Con)
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Stephen Doughty)
The Chagos archipelago and marine protected area is one of the world’s most important marine environments, and as has rightly been recognised by Members across the House, both the UK and Mauritius are committed to its protection. I can confirm that no commercial fishing will be allowed, but low levels of artisanal fishing will be permitted for the sustenance of Chagossian communities, which is compatible with nature conservation. We are working closely with Mauritius to ensure that adequate patrolling capabilities will be maintained after the marine protected area enters into force.
Blake Stephenson
I thank the Minister for his response. A recent Yale University report ranked Mauritius last out of 131 states for stringency in relation to its marine protected areas, and a woeful 173th out of 180 for the protection of biodiversity. Mauritius has even admitted that it does not have the capacity to patrol the area, and that it is open to commercial fishing. I recognise the response that the Minister gave, but Britain has kept the Chagos marine environment pristine for 50 years. Why do the Government not want to secure that legacy in law?
Stephen Doughty
With the greatest of respect, because I know that the hon. Gentleman raises the issue with sincerity, I was just very clear. It was on 3 November that Mauritius announced the creation of the Chagos archipelago marine protected area, and it has confirmed that no commercial fishing will be allowed in any part of the MPA. We are working very closely with Mauritius on patrolling and protecting the environment. These are important issues, and I assure him that we are absolutely seized of them.
Priti Patel (Witham) (Con)
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?
Stephen Doughty
Again, the right hon. Lady has made wild claims about costs. What she says is simply not the case. We have been absolutely clear that the UK will never compromise our national security. As we have made clear repeatedly, the agreement that we have struck is vital to protecting our national security and that of our allies, and to guaranteeing the long-term future of a base that is crucial for the UK and the United States. Our deal secures the operation of the joint US-UK base on Diego Garcia for generations. It has backing from across the Five Eyes, as well as from other international partners. I remind the right hon. Lady that, in May, the US Secretary of State said,
“The Trump Administration determined that this agreement secures the long-term, stable, and effective operation of the joint US-UK military facility at Diego Garcia.”
We will of course have discussions with the US Administration in coming days to remind them of the strength of this deal, and of how it secures the base, and I am surprised that these comments have been made in the context of difficult conversations about Greenland. The right hon. Lady joins us in standing for its sovereignty and right to self-determination, so I urge her to be a little more reflective in her comments.
Douglas McAllister (West Dunbartonshire) (Lab)
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Stephen Doughty)
With the greatest respect, the hon. Member knows that this Government have strengthened our relationships with the EU: we have a security and defence partnership; we are securing a sanitary and phytosanitary deal; and we are rejoining Erasmus+. Those are all things that will make a tangible difference for people in Scotland and across the United Kingdom, and we are very proud of them.
Mike Reader (Northampton South) (Lab)
Robbie Moore (Keighley and Ilkley) (Con)
A 14-year-old child, the son of my constituent Mr Greaves, has been detained by the French state for 440 days. He is a British citizen with no dual nationality. He has received no schooling and, most concerning of all, has not received even a single welfare visit by the British consulate, despite having been chased many times. Will the Foreign Secretary intervene personally in this case and meet with me to be able to secure a welfare visit?
Alex Sobel (Leeds Central and Headingley) (Lab/Co-op)
Last week, Uganda held elections. There were wide-ranging accounts of people being prevented from going to polling stations and of ballot stuffing. In one polling station, more votes were cast than there were electors. There is now widespread violence, and the son of the so-called President of Uganda has threatened to murder the leader of the opposition, Bobi Wine, who lost the election. What can the Foreign Secretary tell me about the veracity of the elections? What is she doing to protect British citizens in Uganda and to ensure the safety of members of the National Unity Platform?
Dr Al Pinkerton (Surrey Heath) (LD)
In answer to an earlier question, the Foreign Secretary said that the future of Greenland should be determined by Greenlanders and Danes, yet Members across this House are just finding out that any opportunity to give Chagossians a referendum has been stripped from this afternoon’s discussions on the Chagos Bill. Why does the Foreign Secretary think that the Chagossians do not deserve the same rights that she considers to be so fundamental to Greenlanders?
Stephen Doughty
As the hon. Gentleman knows, we are going to be discussing those issues this afternoon; we will have ample time to discuss the amendments down for consideration. He also knows that we have engaged extensively with Chagossian communities.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
Through his new folly over Greenland, President Trump is increasingly bringing the UK closer to Europe. At Denmark’s request, would the UK allow European forces to use the UK’s command infrastructure for operations in and around Greenland?
Stephen Doughty
As the hon. Lady knows, we already work very closely with Denmark in NATO. Indeed, the Foreign Secretary has made clear our desire for an Arctic sentry programme, and we work with other partners in the High North through the joint expeditionary force, so we already work very closely together.
Sarah Coombes (West Bromwich) (Lab)
Last week, I met a mother from my constituency who told me a terrible story. In October, her daughters were taken by their father, supposedly for a day out at the fair, but they never came home. It seems he has abducted them and taken them out of the country, either to Afghanistan or to Pakistan. Can the Minister set out what the Government can do about these kinds of abductions, and will he meet me to discuss how we get these little girls home?
Ukraine
Stephen Doughty Excerpts(2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Stephen Doughty)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the situation in Ukraine.
Next month marks four years since Russia launched its illegal and barbarous full-scale invasion of Ukraine, but Ukraine has stood strong. We have stood alongside Ukraine and will continue to do so. I am particularly proud that this week also marks one year on from our agreement of a crucial 100-year partnership with Ukraine—I know that it enjoys wide support across the House—which we will celebrate and take further forward this week.
This has been four years in which the Ukrainian people have stood firm, bravely resisting the assault on their sovereign territory, and four years of enduring relentless drone and missile strikes that have killed civilians and torn through homes, infrastructure, hospitals and schools. Like many hon. Members across the House, I have been in Kyiv while such attacks have been under way. I have seen the devastation and damage caused and the implications for the civilians—the ordinary people of Ukraine—who face that. I have been in the bunkers where children have to take their lessons because of the attacks, and I have heard the harrowing stories of those who have been abducted and taken by barbarous and illegal Russian action.
Just last week, Russia launched 252 drones and 36 missiles at targets across Ukraine in yet another attack that killed and injured dozens of civilians and left millions without power or heating as temperatures plunged to minus 20°. The attack also included an Oreshnik intermediate-range ballistic missile that struck critical infrastructure near the Polish border. Russia’s use, for the second time, of a hypersonic IRBM in Ukraine—this time close to NATO territory—is a reckless and dangerous escalation. Moscow claimed that it was responding to an alleged Ukrainian attack on one of Putin’s residences, which is a baseless allegation and yet another example of Russia using disinformation to justify its actions. Just last week I discussed disinformation with hon. Members at the Foreign Affairs Committee. I know that it is an issue that many of us across the House take deeply seriously.
As an aside, I note the absence in the Chamber yet again of one party—we all note that, as there is a strong cross-party consensus on Ukraine. Of course, that party has willingly repeated Russian narratives on NATO and Ukraine, and indeed its former leader in Wales took bribes from Russia to share those narratives. Reform Members might like this to go away, but it is not just their words that speak volumes; their absence does, too.
I genuinely commend the Opposition and the other parties present, because I have had many conversations with the Members here, and I think all of us, whichever side of the House we are on, have stood resolutely with Ukraine since the start of this conflict. That very much represents where the British people stand on this illegal and barbarous aggression on our continent. We know from our own history what such aggression can mean, and we will continue to take that stand. I am proud of those in my constituency and all our constituencies who continue to support Ukrainians in the UK, and continue to stand with Ukraine in its fight against Russia.
Russia’s barbaric actions come against the backdrop of US-led peace negotiations. Time and again, Ukraine has shown that it is the party of peace, and just last week, President Zelensky came together with world leaders and the United States in Paris to discuss next steps. We welcome the significant progress that has been made, and the work of President Trump and many others to take that forward. Alongside France, the UK has led the coalition of the willing, carrying out detailed military planning on the security guarantees that are needed to insure against future Russian aggression in the event of a peace settlement.
In Paris, at the largest meeting yet of the coalition, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister joined President Macron and President Zelensky to sign a declaration of intent. That declaration confirms that in the event of a peace deal, the UK and France would deploy forces to Ukraine. It paves the way for a legal framework under which British, French and partner forces could operate on Ukrainian soil, securing its skies and seas and regenerating its armed forces for the future. As the Prime Minister has said, if British troops were to deploy under this agreement, the matter would come before this House for a debate and a vote. The Paris declaration agreed between us and our coalition partners sets out the security guarantees that are to be activated once a ceasefire takes effect.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
I have previously suggested that to have an occupied eastern part of Ukraine under Russian control while the western part of unoccupied Ukraine was left as a military vacuum would be a recipe for disaster. However, it is of concern that the alliance that stood firm at the end of world war two to ensure that West Germany did not get encroached upon by Soviet forces from the east is not still in being, as far as Ukraine is concerned, because of the ambiguous attitude of President Trump. Does the Minister have a view on why President Trump is so clear when it comes to dictatorship in and aggression by Iran, yet has such a strangely different view when it comes to the same two features of Russian behaviour?
Stephen Doughty
I have huge respect for the right hon. Gentleman, as he knows, but I would gently disagree with his suggestion. On President Trump’s leadership, in the important discussions that took place in Paris with the United States and other coalition partners, it was set out clearly how security guarantees would be activated. More broadly, I am proud that we continue to stand with the United States in NATO, and proud of our commitment to article 5 and to defending the security of the alliance. That is absolutely crucial to our security, and the security of all of us in the alliance.
We of course support all the progress towards a just and lasting peace, but it is crucial that we keep Ukraine in the fight. We all know that its armed forces are fighting heroically and with great determination. Like many Members, I have met those who have served on the frontlines in Ukraine, and seen the extraordinary bravery and fortitude that they show, but we must recognise that they are under immense pressure, so we need to get them the support that they need to defend themselves, and to ensure that they have support in the future.
Stuart Anderson (South Shropshire) (Con)
Today the NATO Parliamentary Assembly has been given an open letter from the Chairman of the Ukrainian Parliament, Ruslan Stefanchuk. He has been here, and I have met him a few times. He is urging
“the immediate delivery of air defence and air-to-air missiles”.
Ukraine is in desperate need of them, and he has asked all NATO members to speed up this delivery as much as possible.
Stephen Doughty
I thank the hon. and gallant Gentleman for his comments, and for sharing what the Speaker of the Rada has said. I too have met him. He is a remarkable individual, as indeed are all the Ukrainian MPs we have all met. They stood up to defend their Parliament at the most difficult of times: at the time of the invasion. He raises important points. These are all matters that the Secretary of State for Defence, the Minister for the Armed Forces and others are looking at.
We are very much looking at all the immediate needs, and of course, we stand ready to support Ukraine wherever we can. Indeed, that is why we have led the 50-nation Ukraine defence contact group, alongside Germany. We secured £50 billion in military aid pledges last year, and we are going further. In Project Octopus, we have developed an advanced air defence interceptor drone, which is to be mass-produced in the UK. We are developing a new long-range ballistic missile to boost Ukraine’s firepower and defend against Putin’s war machine.
We continue to lead, not only on supporting Ukraine, but on galvanising partners to maintain support. I met my good colleague from Portugal this morning, and discussed the contribution that Portugal has made. Indeed, many countries across Europe, large and small, have stepped up, and it is important to acknowledge that European partners increased aid by more than 50% in 2025, compared to the year before. In December, as colleagues will know, the European Council agreed a €90 billion loan to help meet Ukraine’s needs, and of course we are also providing up to £4.1 billion in support through a World Bank loan guarantee that runs until 2027.
Of course, as well as the military support that we need to provide to Ukraine, now and into the future, so that it can defend against and deter future threats in the event of a settlement, we must rachet up the pressure on Putin to de-escalate the war, engage in meaningful negotiations and come to the table. I am proud that this Government have sanctioned over 900 individuals, entities and ships under the UK’s Russia sanctions regime, including Russia’s largest oil companies and 520 oil tankers. Last week, as colleagues will know, the UK supported the United States in intercepting the sanctioned vessel Bella 1 in the north Atlantic as it made its way to Russia.
We are working with international partners on further measures to tackle the shadow fleet. Those include additional sanctions, steps to discourage third countries from engaging with the fleet, increased information sharing, and readiness to use regulatory and interdiction powers. By choking off Russia’s oil revenues and squeezing its war economy, we are showing Putin that he cannot outlast us.
Our sanctions are biting hard. There is clear evidence of their impact: Russia’s oil export revenues are at a four-year low. We are preparing to implement further significant sanctions this year, which have been announced, including bans on importing refined oil of Russian origin, and a maritime service ban on Russian liquefied natural gas, which a number of Members have rightly called for over past months.
As a result of our actions and those of our partners, Russia’s economy is now in its worst position since the full-scale invasion began. We are also taking the crucial steps to stop the third-country circumvention of sanctions. Whether it is intercepting crypto networks that are flooding resource into Russia, the components and other things on critical lists that it might be using in drones, or the energy revenues that it is generating, we will not cease till we find every way in which Putin is attempting to circumvent our regimes. I am proud to work closely with colleagues in Departments across Government on this, but also, crucially, with European, United States and other partners. That is having a tangible impact, and is as crucial as the direct support that we provide.
Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)
I agree that the foreign exchange earnings of the Russian economy have been badly damaged by the sanctions, but we are also coming to the conclusion, are we not, that it is legal for Western powers to intervene on the fake flag fleet—the shadow fleet—as we saw last week? What plans do the Government and our allies have to make the whole business of exporting Russian oil and gas far more risky, by undertaking a large-scale interception of the shadow fleet?
Stephen Doughty
The hon. Member will note that I chose my words about future actions carefully. I will obviously not go into specifics, but let me just say that we know what Putin is doing. We know where he is taking things and what is happening, and we will not hesitate to act where we can, lawfully, to choke off those revenues that go towards fuelling the war against Ukraine. Let us remember that that is exactly what they do. Let this be a warning: we will not hesitate to use the powers we have—lawfully, of course—wherever we can.
Stuart Anderson
I thank the Minister for giving way a second time. In December, I went on a cross-party trip with NATO to South Korea; we heard that its Government have changed their position on Russia and are now looking to open plants in Russia. They spouted the Russian lines against NATO. I have fed that into Government, but we have recently signed a huge trade deal with South Korea. Is it a concern in Government that people we are trading with are now shifting their position on Russia?
Stephen Doughty
We continue to work and engage with all partners around the world about the reality of any loopholes or routes that could be supporting the war. As we all know, troops from the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea were brought in by Russia to fight. There are also often entities and individuals operating within countries, and we try to bring those to the attention of the authorities of our partners and friends, so that they can take action, but we will not hesitate to sanction and take action, where appropriate.
Turning to the crucial issue of accountability, we are working closely with Ukraine and its allies to hold Russia accountable for its heinous crimes in Ukraine. We are a founding member and chair of the conference of participants of the register of damage, which allows Ukranians to record losses, injury or damage caused by the war. In December, I was proud to visit The Hague to sign, on behalf of the UK, the convention to establish an international claims commission, which will assess claims under the register of damage to determine future compensation. We are also supporting the office of the prosecutor general of Ukraine and the International Criminal Court to ensure that allegations of war crimes are fully and fairly investigated, using independent and robust legal mechanisms.
As I mentioned, tens of thousands of boys and girls have been snatched from their families, deported and indoctrinated by Russia. We are clear that this is a campaign to erase a nation’s future. We cannot allow that to happen, so we are backing crucial efforts to identify those children and bring them home, and we are working with partners on that. We have committed more than £2.8 million to helping to trace and return them. We welcome all that colleagues have been doing to raise awareness of the issue globally.
Tahir Ali (Birmingham Hall Green and Moseley) (Lab)
Last year, I moved my constituency office into Bosnia House, a former police station that was taken over by Anes Ceric, the CEO of the Bosnia UK Network, and his organisation. The network supports all communities, including Ukrainians, Syrians and Bosnians. There are such facilities not only in my constituency, but across the country. More help needs to be provided to ensure that the Ukrainians who settle in this country are fully supported, not only to achieve a better life, but to integrate with other communities. If any support—for example, any money drawn from sanctions—can be targeted at those organisations, it would be most gratefully received.
Stephen Doughty
My hon. Friend is right to point out the contribution of the many organisations across the country that have reached out to support Ukrainian communities. I have certainly seen that in Cardiff, where some fantastic groups have done that; I know that is reflected in my hon. Friend’s constituency. There is a strong heritage in this country of individuals who fled conflict working to support others who have done the same. I have seen that repeatedly in many different groups. I pay tribute to all of them, and to all the people up and down Britain who have brought Ukrainians into their homes and supported these efforts in many other ways.
Ben Obese-Jecty (Huntingdon) (Con)
While we are on the subject of Russian war crimes, James Scott Rhys Anderson is one of the only Britons to have been captured by the Russians. He was tried—the Foreign Office believes on false charges—and charged with being part of a terrorist group and illegally entering Russia. He was sentenced to five years in a Russian prison, and will then be transferred to a Russian penal colony, rather than being treated in accordance with the Geneva convention. What progress has been made on securing his release?
Stephen Doughty
I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we are well aware of the number of cases. Russia has obligations under the Geneva convention, and we expect them to be upheld. We regularly raise these cases at the appropriate levels. I am happy to talk to him separately about that specific case, but he can be assured that I am well aware of that and a number of other cases. We are clear that international law must be upheld, including the basic principles of treatment of prisoners of war and situations involving children. That goes to the heart of the nature of what the Russian regime has been doing and the lengths it is willing to go to. We urge the upholding of the commitments to basic decency and the treatment of individuals, to which we are all signed up.
We are standing with Ukrainian people on the ground in their hour of need. We have provided more than £577 million in humanitarian support for vulnerable citizens since the invasion began, including those forced to flee their homes. This year we will spend up to £100 million on support, including to help families through this harsh winter. We have upped our support in energy, particularly in response to regular attacks on energy infrastructure. A lot of our work is to help to mitigate that, but the scale of those attacks is severe and they have a daily impact, as Members can see in media reporting and from what we know on the ground.
There is no firmer friend for Ukraine than the UK. Indeed, our commitment runs deep. I have mentioned the crucial 100-year partnership that the Prime Minister signed with President Zelensky in Kyiv. That agreement has enhanced co-operation across defence and security, science, trade and culture.
Matt Rodda (Reading Central) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for his update, particularly the in-depth overview that he is giving us. Further to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Hall Green and Moseley (Tahir Ali), I would appreciate an update on the work that the Minister is doing to support families in this country. I commend to him the work of the Ukrainian community centre in Reading, where there is a Ukrainian language library. It is one of the very few in the south of England, and people visit from west London and Oxford to use it. It is important that families are able to maintain their native language and that children can retain their culture at this difficult time. Will he say a few words about the importance of that form of domestic support?
Stephen Doughty
My hon. Friend makes a hugely important point. Indeed, there is a similar initiative—a Ukrainian language library—in my constituency. It is absolutely crucial that that support is given, not only because it is the right thing to do for those young people, enabling them to maintain a connection to their culture, heritage and language, but because it stands in stark contrast to the attempts by Putin to wipe out their language, culture, history and heritage—not least through the abduction of children and continued attacks. One of the most moving moments during my visit to Kyiv was in a bunker under a school, where I saw the remarkable fortitude and resilience of young people and their teachers in the face of Russia’s attempts to destroy their lives physically and psychologically. They stand firm and resilient, as Ukrainians do. That should be a lesson to us all.
Under the 100-year partnership, as well as the joint development of drone technology, trading links, digital connection and other matters, we also have important school-twinning programmes. Those things will, collectively, deliver long-term economic growth and security for the UK and Ukraine, and strengthen ties between our nations.
I will end my remarks as I know that many Members wish to contribute. The UK’s support for Ukraine is iron-clad. The Ukrainians’ security is our security. We fully support US-led efforts to secure a just and lasting peace. As we have said repeatedly, only the Ukrainian people can decide their future. We remain committed to the principle that international borders must never be changed by force, and any deal must guarantee Ukraine’s sovereignty and security—and, indeed, Europe and the United Kingdom’s security—in the future. In the meantime, we will not hesitate to keep supporting Ukraine and ensure that it has the military equipment to defend itself, while sustaining the economic pressure on Putin to cut off the revenues funding this barbaric war, and ensuring accountability for the appalling scenes of destructions and devastation, be they against children, infrastructure or the whole nation of Ukraine. Slava Ukraini.
Nigeria: Freedom of Religion or Belief
Stephen Doughty Excerpts(2 weeks, 1 day ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Stephen Doughty)
I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for North Northumberland (David Smith) for securing the debate and for his tireless work as special envoy. I thank hon. Members from across the House for their thoughtful contributions. I will try to respond to as many of the points that have been raised as I can in the time available.
I declare an interest as a Christian who has worked with Open Doors and others in the past to draw attention to cases where people are persecuted for their beliefs. I genuinely welcome the chance to keep this important matter in the spotlight. I have engaged with the issue for many years, including when I was shadow Minister for Africa. I was glad to hear my hon. Friend mention Nigerian communities in the UK. I have had the pleasure of meeting Nigerian Christian communities in my constituency of Cardiff South and Penarth, and I know the amazing contribution that they make, alongside Nigerian communities across the UK.
My hon. Friend is right that this issue should interest, concern and deeply shock us all because of the horrific things that we have seen. The brutality of the attacks against religious communities in Nigeria is truly appalling. The cold-blooded massacre of over 200 Christians in Yelwata, Benue state, last October was particularly shocking. We have heard many terrible statistics today, but last year’s Open Doors world watch list reported that armed groups murdered 3,100 Christians for their faith in Nigeria in 2025, and abducted a further 3,000. It is shocking to hear that extremists have stormed villages, killed worshippers, kidnapped families and burned homes, and we have heard some truly horrific examples today.
Nigeria’s constitution promises freedom of religion or belief for all. Every person in that country deserves the right to practise their faith or belief safely, without fear or persecution. When we defend freedom of religion or belief, we help to build trust between communities, strengthen Nigeria’s social fabric and create conditions for lasting peace and prosperity for everyone. That is why Nigeria is one of the 10 countries prioritised for targeted action in the Government’s strategy on freedom of religion or belief, launched last July.
We welcome the President’s commitment to religious freedoms and his pledge to safeguard freedom of belief for all Nigerians. I am glad that my hon. Friend the Member for North Northumberland recognised that we are working closely with the Nigerian authorities, along with communities and faith leaders directly, to uphold and protect these freedoms. Indeed, my colleague Baroness Chapman, the Minister for Africa, continues to be engaged closely in this topic, and she is extremely concerned about the violence against many communities, including religious communities, in Nigeria.
My hon. Friend asked about the work that we are doing to raise these issues at the highest levels. Baroness Chapman spoke directly with Nigeria’s Foreign Minister Tuggar about freedom of religion or belief in November. Our high commissioner and his team engage with local authorities, communities and faith leaders in affected areas, including with groups such as the Governors’ Forum, the National Peace Committee and the National Human Rights Commission.
We know that criminality, intercommunal violence and insecurity make things worse for religious communities. That is why we focus on tackling the root causes of instability to protect people’s rights, whether they come from Christian communities or Muslim communities, or whether they are humanists, have different beliefs or, indeed, have no beliefs. We need to create a society where everybody is able to live and to practise in the way that they wish. I am glad that my hon. Friend mentioned the case of Mubarak Bala, which I remember raising on many occasions in the past. We highlight violations of freedom of religion or belief on the international stage and push for joint action, including at the UN, the G7, as part of the Article 18 Alliance and in bodies like the Human Rights Council.
My hon. Friend and other hon. Members rightly pointed to the violent extremist groups, such as Boko Haram and Islamic State West Africa, which continue to attack people in shocking ways in the north-east of Nigeria. They target anyone who rejects their ideology. My hon. Friend made the important point that it is not just Christians, but the mainly Muslim population of the north-east who suffer terribly as a result. However, the Christian minority faces extreme persecution through mass kidnappings and murders. Those are utterly unacceptable and have shocked the world.
Intercommunal violence and criminal banditry are linked, and they fuel deaths and tensions. Criminals smuggle weapons into Nigeria, affecting both Muslims and Christians, and they use motorbikes and all sorts of other techniques to evade the authorities. Conflict over land and resources in Nigeria often takes on a religious aspect as tensions rise and violence escalates. Those ideologies can sometimes be used as psychological warfare, with attacks on churches and mosques being seen as acts of revenge.
However, peaceful dialogue can resolve disputes before they escalate. Since our last debate on this issue in 2024, we have rolled out the UK’s Strengthening Peace and Resilience in Nigeria programme across Kaduna, Katsina, Benue and Plateau states; I was glad to hear that referred to. The programme is doing very important work in reducing violence by strengthening local peace and justice systems and supporting practical, community-led solutions. One early success is that 5,000 internally displaced people have returned and resettled after a peace agreement between the Bassa and Egbura communities in Nasarawa state. If we do not tackle the root causes of insecurity, religious communities will remain at risk of these terrible atrocities.
My hon. Friend mentioned our co-operation with Nigeria more broadly on security issues, which I am very pleased to play a role in alongside my colleague, the Minister for Africa. Last July, we hosted the third security and defence partnership dialogue with Nigeria.
Stephen Doughty
I will be generous and give way to the hon. Gentleman in his new position.
Mike Wood
The tragic case of Deborah Samuel Yakubu is a reminder of the culture of impunity that has been allowed to develop in too many parts of Nigeria. Can the Minister assure the House that the UK Government do everything and take every opportunity to stress the need for improved security in particularly vulnerable parts of Nigeria to ensure that people are safe to exercise their religious beliefs?
Stephen Doughty
I absolutely can. I mentioned a range of different levels at which we do that—indeed, the Minister for Africa has raised a number of these issues at the highest level—and we continue to engage. The high commissioner and the team do an excellent job of engaging at all levels to raise these cases. That is why we have this dialogue, the SPRiNG programme and the investment that we are making across a range of areas with the Nigerian authorities, who are close partners in many respects and on many issues not just in Nigeria, but more broadly.
We agreed to strengthen our co-operation and provide practical support to defend against these threats. That includes very practical steps such as sharing operational lessons to counter new tactics being used by terrorists, including the use of drones and improvised explosive devices, which have tragically been used against civilians in too many locations.
The UK is trying to address the wider issues of poverty and humanitarian concerns. We support hundreds of thousands of people through our humanitarian assistance and resilience programme. I assure you, Madam Deputy Speaker, as well as the special envoy that we will keep working with the Nigerian authorities and faith leaders to address the shocking violence against people who are simply trying to follow their faith or belief.
I particularly welcome the concerns raised about Christian communities, but this issue affects many. We will work at every level to ensure that this violence is brought to an end, and we will also work globally on these issues. I really praise the special envoy for the work that he does on these important issues.
Question put and agreed to.
UK-Overseas Territories Joint Ministerial Council 2025
Stephen Doughty Excerpts(2 weeks, 1 day ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Stephen Doughty)
The 13th UK-overseas territories joint ministerial council was held from 24 to 27 November 2025 in London. The council was attended by elected leaders and representatives from Anguilla, Ascension, Bermuda, the British Virgin Islands, the Cayman Islands, the Falkland Islands, Gibraltar, Montserrat, the Pitcairn Islands, St Helena, the sovereign base areas of Akrotiri and Dhekelia, Tristan da Cunha and the Turks and Caicos Islands.
The overseas territories make invaluable contributions to our British family. The UK has a responsibility to defend the OTs, to ensure security and good governance of the overseas territories and their peoples.
The JMC is the highest forum for political dialogue and consultation among the elected leaders and representatives of the overseas territories and UK Ministers. We met under the strapline of “Protect, Grow, Sustain—Together”. This reflects the UK’s desire to build closer relationships, based on mutual respect and inclusion, and to transform the UK’s relationship with the overseas territories for us to deliver greater security, prosperity and sustainability.
In my capacity as Minister for the overseas territories, I chaired the council. During the council, the Foreign Secretary met elected leaders to discuss UK and overseas territories’ priorities. Other UK ministerial colleagues who participated in the discussions included: the right hon. Lord Hanson of Flint, Minister of State at the Home Office; the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry East (Mary Creagh); the Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero, my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds North West (Katie White); my hon. and learned Friend the Economic Secretary to the Treasury; Lord Coaker, Minister of State at the Ministry of Defence; and the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, my hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley (Jake Richards). The UK Special Representative for Nature Ruth Davis OBE, the UK Commonwealth envoy, and representatives from UK Export Finance, the National Cyber Security Centre, the Alan Turing Institute, Health Innovation Kent, Surrey, and Sussex, the Glasgow 2026 Organising Company, AtkinsRéalis and British Expertise International also participated in discussions.
We were deeply honoured by His Majesty the King hosting a reception at Buckingham Palace for those attending the joint ministerial council. The Commons Speaker hosted a dinner for elected leaders and representatives in Parliament.
The UK Government and the elected leaders and representatives of the overseas territories reaffirmed our support for the five principles I set out last year to guide the UK’s relationship with the elected Governments of the overseas territories: devolution and democratic autonomy for the overseas territories; listening to the overseas territories, following the principle of “nothing about you without you”; partnership with the overseas territories based on mutual respect and inclusion—rights come with responsibilities; good governance and ensuring proper democratic accountability and regulation; and defending the overseas territories’ security, autonomy and rights, including the right of self-determination.
The council agreed priorities and set out commitments and areas for joint work in the year ahead. The elected leaders and representatives of the overseas territories and I agreed to develop partnership compacts between the UK and any territory that wishes to join. Partnership compacts are intended to provide tailored, practical frameworks for advancing shared priorities, and to signal a renewed commitment to partnership. At the council we agreed the basis upon which to develop the partnership compacts in a collaborative manner. We agreed that the 2012 overseas territories White Paper remained the component foundation of our partnership as complemented by recent statements and agreements. I confirmed our intention to develop a UK Government charter to strengthen commitments from our side on how the UK Government engage with the overseas territories.
The key themes of discussion at this year’s council were: continuing the reset of the relationship between the UK and the overseas territories; security and irregular migration; economic growth and diversification; tackling illicit finance; AI and innovation in healthcare; cyber-security; nature, climate and the environment; official development assistance; and sport and the Glasgow 2026 Commonwealth games. We also discussed a range of other issues. The discussions were open and forward-looking, demonstrating a mutual commitment to strengthening the partnership.
We discussed the crucial work of overseas territories in managing unique and globally significant environments and ecosystems, as stewards of 94% of Britain's unique biodiversity, and we reflected on the outcomes of COP30. With the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry East (Mary Creagh) and Dr Gemma Harper OBE, Chief Executive of the Joint Nature Conservation Committee, we launched the UK overseas territories biodiversity strategy—the UK and the overseas territories united for nature.
We reviewed the complex security and irregular migration threats facing the overseas territories. The UK is committed to collaborating proactively with all territories to fulfil our duty to defend the people of the overseas territories and strengthen security and justice across the UK family. Together with the elected leaders and representatives of the overseas territories, we emphasised that these serious challenges, including from serious and organised crime, require sustainable solutions through comprehensive, multi-agency approaches—including co-ordination, defence, operational support, reform across security and criminal justice sectors, regional co-operation and targeted action addressing underlying social issues.
According to Office for National Statistics data, the UK’s trading relationship with its overseas territories would place them collectively among the UK’s top 25 trading partners. We are committed to strengthening this partnership and supporting practical steps to unlock further growth. The JMC included sessions with UK Export Finance and a business engagement and networking event with UK companies delivered in partnership with British Expertise International. We will continue to build on such initiatives to help deliver mutual prosperity for peoples in the UK and overseas territories.
The UK and overseas territories reaffirmed our joint commitment to tackling illicit finance, by upholding and continuing to strive for the highest international financial standards. I noted the importance of the overseas territories delivering on previous commitments, including at the last joint ministerial council, to expand access to their registers of beneficial ownership. We welcomed the launch of St Helena’s publicly accessible register of beneficial ownership, and the commitment by the Falkland Islands to implement their register next summer. We welcome the launch of legitimate interest access registers of beneficial ownership in the Cayman Islands—and their commitment to make further improvements to user access—and the Turks and Caicos Islands. The UK underlined the urgency of delivering progress in that constructive endeavour with territories that have yet to satisfy our expectations on access and transparency on these issues. We agreed to hold further technical discussions and I will chair a discussion with elected leaders at a ministerial illicit finance dialogue in the first quarter of 2026. The UK reiterated its ultimate expectation of fully public registers of beneficial ownership in the overseas territories, and we will continue to pursue that objective in future discussions.
We welcomed the work of overseas territories in sanctions implementation and enforcement and reiterated our offer to work with overseas territories to enhance this area of work. A range of other detailed discussions were also held bilaterally on specific issues affecting the overseas territories related to constitutions, public services, infrastructure and relations with neighbours and the UK.
We agreed a joint communiqué, which was issued following the conclusion of the council and published on the gov.uk website.
[HC1237]
Human Rights Abuses: Magnitsky Sanctions
Stephen Doughty Excerpts(2 weeks, 6 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Stephen Doughty)
Let me start by thanking the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) for securing this debate. He always speaks with conviction and passion; he has been absolutely consistent on these issues for a very long time, and I recognise his leadership as chair of the all-party parliamentary group on Magnitsky sanctions and reparation. We fully support him and every colleague in this House who stands up for our values and has been sanctioned as a result—including your colleague the hon. Member for Sussex Weald (Ms Ghani), Madam Deputy Speaker.
I am grateful for all the contributions today, which have been constructively critical. I assure the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green and all Members that our teams will take the individual cases raised seriously, and I will try my best in the time available to respond to all the key points.
I emphasise from the start that I share the ambition of Members across this House. I take on board the challenge—indeed, I made many similar points in opposition on these issues in similar debates. I emphasise to colleagues the extraordinary work of the officials at the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office and of other teams across Government who work on these issues. I have to be honest: resource is finite, but we have invested substantially and we will continue to do so. We have set ambitious targets, including on enforcement, which I will come to, but I pay tribute to those people and recognise that they have been awarded for that work within the Department, and rightly so. That work is having a genuine impact, because sanctions are one of the most powerful tools we have to protect our security and advance our foreign policy, including in the areas described today.
We impose sanctions to isolate those responsible, to restrict their ability to act and to change their behaviour, as well as to send deterrent and other messages beyond those we target. However, sanctions must be focused, enforceable, legally sound and backed by the right resources and credible evidence. We maintain the integrity of our regime through the strictest interpretation and the solidity of the evidence underpinning sanctions. I want colleagues to understand that, because it is important for the functioning of the regime as a whole.
Since this Government came in, we have set ambitious targets on sanctions, and we have introduced more than 1,000 new sanctions designations against individuals, entities and ships. We have laid 15 new statutory instruments before Parliament, including to create a new regime on irregular migration, to which the shadow Minister referred. We have already designated 32 individuals and entities under that. We have played a leading role in the snapback of sanctions on Iran’s nuclear and ballistic missile programmes. Those are just some of the examples showing that sanctions are not just symbolic gestures, but practical tools that are tightly focused and have a meaningful impact.
The UK covers Magnitsky-style sanctions under two regimes: the global human rights regime and the global anti-corruption regime. Under this Government, we have delivered more than 60 designations under those regimes. In 2025, we sanctioned 29 individuals and entities under the global human rights regime, going after scam centres in Cambodia and targets in Sri Lanka, Georgia and the west bank. Many colleagues have raised those areas and issues.
We have also delivered 164 sanctions taking action on human rights violations, war atrocities and gender-based violence. We have imposed sanctions on individuals, entities and organisations responsible for supporting or inciting violence against Palestinian communities in the west bank. In June 2025, we sanctioned the Israeli Government Ministers Itamar Ben-Gvir and Bezalel Smotrich in their personal capacities, in response to their repeated incitement of violence against Palestinian communities. I mentioned the Cambodian scam centre package, which froze 20 UK properties worth more than £125 million, directly disrupting criminal activity in the heart of London. That activity impacted on British citizens on our streets, but was also linked to global corruption networks.
In November 2024, under the global anti-corruption regime, we sanctioned three notorious kleptocrats who had siphoned wealth from their countries, along with their enablers, including family and financial fixers. We froze more than £150 million in UK assets and sent a strong signal of support to Angola and other countries. We targeted an illicit gold network centred on a Kenyan-British smuggler who was using corruption to move gold out of southern Africa. In April 2025, we sanctioned corrupt officials and judges in Georgia and Guatemala and a pro-Russian network in Moldova, exposing their activities and supporting democracy and the rule of law.
Magnitsky sanctions are not our only tool. We also have the wider geographic regimes. Just in December, we sanctioned nine individuals and entities under the Syria regulations for abuses committed under the Assad regime and during last year’s coastal violence. We have to ensure that sanctions are robust, legally sound and evidence-based and that they stand up to the most robust scrutiny, and I am sure that colleagues understand why.
Russia has been highlighted by many Members today. We have taken concerted action on that front, and it is making a significant difference. Last year, we sanctioned more than 700 individuals, entities and ships under the Russian regime. We were the first G7 country to sanction all four Russian oil majors. The US followed suit, and that has had a direct impact: Russia’s oil revenues have dropped to their lowest level since the invasion began. I know that there is strong support across at least the majority of the House on those issues, and I have listed off the many other Magnitsky sanctions designation packages.
I am conscious of the time, and I will try to respond to some of the points that have been raised. It is worth making the point that often there are similarities between the different regimes. We co-ordinate very closely with partners, particularly the European Union, the United States, Canada and others. We try to bring the weight of the world to bear on these issues at crucial times, but I emphasise to colleagues that the legal bases for our sanctions regimes are different. There are different legal and judicial processes, and that is why there are often differences. Because of where nexuses of individuals and entities are, there are also often differences in where our sanctions can have the biggest impact. Sometimes that is what underpins what otherwise appears to be incongruity between regimes, but we always try to bring them together.
The right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green specifically mentioned the Cambodian scam centres and Chen Zhi. I emphasise that Cambodia arrested Chen Zhi and extradited him to China this week, and that the National Bank of Cambodia liquidated Prince Bank on 8 January, so there has been a significant impact as a result of that package. Obviously, the sanctions are only one part of the response to these networks; there are other measures that countries can choose to take in response to very serious allegations.
A lot of questions have rightly been raised about Sudan and the work that the Government are doing on that issue. The Foreign Secretary, the Minister for Africa and I place a great deal of importance on that, and building a consensus on ending that horrific war is a core part of the Government’s diplomatic efforts, including with other regional partners and the UAE. The Foreign Secretary is in regular contact with the Emirati Foreign Minister, and the Prime Minister has also spoken to his counterpart. We will continue to use all necessary means to bring an end to the war in Sudan, which is having a devastating impact on its citizens.
A number of colleagues have asked questions about Hong Kong. Of course, we call on Beijing to repeal Hong Kong’s national security law. We are closely monitoring the situation there, and we keep sanctions under close review. I am not going to speculate on future designations, for obvious reasons, but particular cases have been raised. The case of Jimmy Lai remains an utmost priority. Diplomats continue to press for consular access, and they attended his trial. The Prime Minister has raised Mr Lai’s case directly with President Xi, and we are in close contact with his family and representatives. Of course, we want to make sure that he receives proper treatment, and we are deeply concerned about some of the allegations made about his treatment in prison.
On the case of Ryan Cornelius, I want to acknowledge that his family have been in Parliament today. We continue to support them and, indeed, the family of Charles Ridley as well. The former Foreign Secretary raised their cases with the UAE Foreign Minister last year, and I understand that he and the Minister for the Middle East, my hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln (Mr Falconer), met the families in September. We support their clemency applications, and of course we raise those and other cases with appropriate authorities at the right time.
Jagtar Singh Johal’s case has also been mentioned. We continue to raise serious concerns about that with the Government of India at every possible opportunity.
We have not stopped our Myanmar sanctions. Since the coup, we have sanctioned 25 individuals and 39 entities.
Very important concerns have been raised about Roman Abramovich and Chelsea football club’s assets. I draw colleagues’ attention to what we have said on that, and to the Prime Minister’s action on the licence.
Colleagues have also expressed strong concerns about the shadow Attorney General. As the Prime Minister set out yesterday, the Conservatives have some very serious questions to answer on this issue, which is completely unfathomable to me and deeply disappointing.
On the question of enforcement—
Stephen Doughty
The hon. Gentleman mentions the importance of reporting to Parliament, and I can assure him that I have been scrutinised in this place many times. I have sent a letter to the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee, and to Lord Ricketts in the other place, to set out the full detail of all the work we have done. I am committed to reporting regularly to Parliament on these issues; indeed, I have held private meetings with many Members from across the House to discuss their concerns, and I am absolutely committed to continuing to do that.
On the issue of enforcement, I think some of the criticism was somewhat unwarranted. This is an issue that I have regularly championed. I agree with the principles of what colleagues have said, but I point out that in November the National Crime Agency announced that, based on the intelligence it gained in Operation Destabilise, it supported international law enforcement partners in seizing $24 million and over €2.6 million from Russian money laundering networks with links to drugs and organised crime. There have been over 128 arrests as a result of that operation alone, with over £25 million seized in cash and cryptocurrency—another issue that has been mentioned. In 2025 alone, OFSI issued four major civil monetary penalties, totalling over £900,000—I think some of the figures Members have used are not quite accurate—and for its part, HMRC concluded a £1.1 million compound settlement for trade sanctions breaches in May.
The shadow Minister asked for figures. I am happy to write to her with further details, but to give one example, OTSI has received reports or referrals about 146 potential breaches of sanctions and it has a number of investigations under way. I do not want to comment on them, but I do want to assure hon. Members that we take all the considerations they have raised very seriously. Sanctions, including Magnitsky-related sanctions, are an important tool, and we will continue to look at all such possibilities. I welcome the challenge, and we will continue to rigorously pursue not only the designation of such regimes, but, crucially, the enforcement that makes the difference.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I call Sir Iain Duncan Smith to wind up very quickly.
Chagossians and the Diego Garcia Base Treaty
Stephen Doughty Excerpts(1 month, 1 week ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Stephen Doughty)
The Diego Garcia treaty, signed by the UK on 22 May 2025, secures the future of the strategically critical UK-US military base on Diego Garcia. This base is vital for UK defence and intelligence capabilities, and the safety and security of the British people.
The Government also worked to ensure that the treaty includes important provisions for Chagossians, including the establishment of a trust fund to benefit the community and a route to resettle the islands of the Chagos archipelago other than Diego Garcia. These and other related Chagossian issues have been the subject of significant debate in both Houses. The Government are pleased to update the House on recent developments.
Chagossian Trust Fund
Under the terms of the treaty, the UK will capitalise a £40 million trust fund for the benefit of Chagossians, which will be established by Mauritius. On 12 December, the Mauritian Government approved introduction of primary legislation to establish the trust fund. The Bill will be published on the website of the Mauritian Parliament and can be viewed on the Government Information Service portal of the Government of Mauritius https://gis.govmu.org It confirms the principle that the trust fund will be operated for Chagossians, by Chagossians.
Decisions on the use of funds will be taken by a trust fund management board. The board will comprise 12 members, seven of whom will be Chagossian, ensuring majority representation. The chair of the trust fund will be a Chagossian, selected by the Chagossian members of the board. Following extensive representations and engagement by this Government, the Bill also now confirms that a UK-based Chagossian representative will sit on the board alongside representatives living in Mauritius and the Seychelles. The UK High Commissioner to Mauritius will also attend board meetings.
We welcome these commitments by Mauritius which will ensure the trust fund reflects the full spectrum of perspectives within the Chagossian community.
Eligibility to Participate in a Programme of Resettlement
The treaty enables Mauritius to develop a programme of resettlement on islands other than Diego Garcia. This agreement is the only viable path to resettlement on the archipelago. The UK Government have been in talks with Mauritius to ensure that this programme is open to all Chagossians, irrespective of their country of residence. The Mauritian Government confirmed on 12 December that eligibility to resettle will apply to Chagossians born on the archipelago before 31 December 1973, and children of parents either of whom were born on the archipelago before that date.
UK-based Chagossians who do not hold Mauritian citizenship and meet these criteria will be eligible for Mauritian citizenship, and therefore able to participate in any future programme of resettlement. All Chagossians will remain eligible for British citizenship under the current citizenship pathway. Chagossians will be able to hold both British and Mauritian citizenship.
Mauritius has also confirmed that civil status documents issued by the Government of Mauritius will continue to record the place of birth as the Chagos archipelago for all of those born there. Where, for any reason, this has not been the case, the Government of Mauritius will review and amend the documents as necessary.
Mauritian Criminal Code Amendment
On 29 October, the Mauritius Criminal Code (Amendment No.2) Act 2025 came into force, repealing section 76B of the Mauritian criminal code and removing the offence of
“misrepresenting the sovereignty of Mauritius by producing, distributing, supply or marketing any coin, stamp, official map or official object or document.”
Concerns had been raised that Chagossians might face prosecution for expressing their affiliation with the UK. Although no one was ever prosecuted under this law, we recognise the impact it was having on the Chagossian community and welcome the steps taken by the Mauritian Government to have section 76B of the Mauritian criminal code repealed.
Heritage Visits to the Chagos Archipelago
Both the UK Government and the Republic of Mauritius recognise the importance of heritage visits for the Chagossian community and remain committed to facilitating a programme of heritage visits to the Chagos archipelago, including Diego Garcia. We will work together to resume a programme of visits to the archipelago.
Chagossian Support Programme—Supporting Chagossians in our Communities
Separate to the treaty, the Government are increasing support for Chagossians living in the UK through both new and existing initiatives. This includes support for newly arrived British citizens and a wide range of projects that will benefit the Chagossian community.
Chagossian Contact Group
The Chagossian contact group provides Chagossians with a role in decision-making on the UK Government’s support for their community. On 11 November, we committed to exploring ways to enhance the group by increasing its transparency and frequency, provided that the contact group’s existing members agreed. FCDO officials have discussed this with contact group members, who are now consulting with the wider community ahead of making decisions. We will provide a further update once these are received.
[HCWS1166]
Oral Answers to Questions
Stephen Doughty Excerpts(1 month, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Rachel Taylor (North Warwickshire and Bedworth) (Lab)
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Stephen Doughty)
We collaborate closely with our international partners to deter and disrupt the perpetrators of malicious cyber-activity and to hold them to account. Just last month, the United Kingdom, along with the United States and Australia, sanctioned Media Land, a major Russian cyber-crime syndicate that enabled ransomware and phishing attacks against UK businesses, underscoring our commitment to tackling illicit cyber-activity.
Rachel Taylor
The past year has seen cyber-attacks on some of our biggest household names, including Jaguar Land Rover, putting jobs and livelihoods in my constituency of North Warwickshire and Bedworth at risk. What action is the Minister taking with the UK’s partners overseas to tackle this growing threat, both in our country and throughout the world?
Stephen Doughty
My hon. Friend raises a crucial issue on behalf of her constituents. Incidents such as the attack on Jaguar Land Rover serve as a stark reminder that cyber-threat is not just an abstract concept, but one that has real-world costs. We are working closely with international partners. We are a founding member of the Counter Ransomware Initiative that in October led the agreement of supply chain resilience guidance endorsed by 67 countries, and we are working closely with other partners through the United Nations and other bodies.
Rishi Sunak (Richmond and Northallerton) (Con)
In the past 12 months, nationally significant cyber-incidents have doubled, many backed by hostile foreign states, as the Minister will know. The National Cyber Force is clear that offensive cyber-operations play a part in ensuring our national security, so given the environment in which our adversaries are co-operating, will the Minister continue to deepen our co-operation with our Five Eyes partners in this domain, not least because I know at first hand how much they value the particular capabilities that the UK brings to bear in this area?
Stephen Doughty
The former Prime Minister is absolutely right to raise this issue. The level of hostile state activity is significant and it is growing. That is why we are working closely with international partners. We have provided almost £30 million in support for international cyber-security capacity building, including for Ukraine and working with other partners. We are also working on issues such as sanctions: we have sanctioned 26 cyber-criminal support entities linked to malicious cyber-activity and 16 Russian military intelligence officers, including an attribution of cyber-units within the GRU, so our co-operation with Five Eyes partners and others is crucial.
Mr Andrew Snowden (Fylde) (Con)
The whole House and country should rightly be concerned about cyber-attacks, from malign cyber-activity directed at MPs and the Electorate Commission, to Chinese companies linked to global malicious cyber-campaigns. When will this Government stand up to China and address this threat? When will they send a strong message to the Chinese Communist party by blocking its super-embassy application and finally placing China on the enhanced tier of the foreign influence registration scheme?
Stephen Doughty
I have been very clear about just how seriously we take the activity from different states in the cyber domain, and its significance is growing. As I have pointed out, we are working closely with international partners. The hon. Gentleman will understand that I will not go into the detail of all our work on that, but I commend the work of our National Cyber Security Centre with businesses, individuals and this place to ensure that our resilience is in place. We will continue to work with international partners to counter these threats.
Mike Reader (Northampton South) (Lab)
Dr Al Pinkerton (Surrey Heath) (LD)
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Stephen Doughty)
We are working across Government to build a new strategic partnership with the EU. The Foreign Secretary and I meet regularly with European partners, and I will be doing so later this week. Last month I joined the Foreign Secretary and the Defence Secretary for the first foreign and security policy dialogue with EU High Representative Kallas. Collaborative relationships are key to building this partnership and delivering what the British people want—on growth, the cost of living, security and action to counter irregular migration.
Dr Pinkerton
With growing Chinese espionage, Russian aggression on the European continent and a capricious President in the United States, it is more important than ever that we deepen our security co-operation with our European allies. Can I ask the Minister explicitly whether he recognises, as I do, that the UK’s deepest possible participation in the EU’s Security Action for Europe scheme is vital to common European security? What have he and the Government done to try to prompt the restart of the negotiations with the European Union that sadly broke down last week?
Stephen Doughty
Our security and defence partnership is broad. The UK entered discussions with the EU on the SAFE scheme in good faith, recognising mutual strategic interest and continued commitment. We were clear with the EU that we were prepared to make a fair financial contribution that reflects the potential for a mutually beneficial relationship and value for the taxpayer. However, we have always said that we will not sign deals unless they are genuinely in the national interest, and in this case the deal on offer from the EU did not pass that test. But I am absolutely confident that our wider defence and industrial relationships are not affected. In fact, our deal with Norway on frigates, our £8 billion agreement with Turkey for the purchase of 20 Typhoon jets, and our agreement with Germany on joint export campaigns in relation to Boxer armoured vehicles all very much represent the very best of European defence industrial co-operation.
Dame Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)
I know that the Minister appreciates the need for the EU and the UK to work very closely together in the face of global security threats and trade challenges. In his talks with EU colleagues, will he impress on them the damage that the proposed EU steel tariffs would do to not just our UK steel industry but manufacturing across the UK and the EU?
Stephen Doughty
My hon. Friend has always been a very strong advocate for the steel industry. I can confirm that we are absolutely committed to defending our steel industry. We are seeking an urgent clarification from the EU Commission on its proposals. We need to find a bilateral solution. Any EU measures must, of course, be consistent with the trade and co-operation agreement and uphold summit commitments and, indeed, our Windsor framework obligations.
David Williams (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Lab)
Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Con)
Last month, the Government buckled under pressure about their lack of consultation with the Chagossian people on the shameful handover of sovereign British territory to Mauritius. If the process is genuinely intended to inform policy, what steps will the Minister take to ensure that the views expressed to the House of Lords International Relations and Defence Committee are free from external interference? How will its findings inform the Government’s decision on the future of the Chagos islands?
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Stephen Doughty)
As the hon. Gentleman knows, the Committee is engaging a wide range of Chagossians to ascertain their views on the implications of the treaty and will produce a report before Christmas. We have seen no evidence of Mauritian interference, and it is important to recognise the wide range of views in the Chagossian community. I very much look forward to reading the IRDC’s report when it is completed.
Andrew Rosindell
I hope the Minister will check that there are actually Chagossians and not outsiders taking part in that consultation. Anyway, let us try something else.
Given last week’s report that the Chancellor had a £4 billion surplus rather than a £20 billion deficit as previously suggested, will the Minister explain why the Government are pressing ahead with this eye-wateringly expensive £35 billion gift of British sovereign territory to Mauritius? Does the Minister not agree that scrapping that atrocious deal would be a better way to help the Chancellor restore fiscal credibility and save British taxpayers’ money?
Stephen Doughty
No matter how many times the hon. Gentleman repeats his wild claims about the cost of the deal, they are no more correct. I have been clear on multiple occasions about the cost of the deal. We will not scrimp on the national security of this country. The base is crucial for our security and that of our allies, and we have set out the costs very clearly.
Mrs Sureena Brackenridge (Wolverhampton North East) (Lab)
James Naish (Rushcliffe) (Lab)
Stephen Doughty
My hon. Friend raises a crucial point. We work closely with our partners on that issue and support democratic institutions and values, including through the Westminster Foundation for Democracy. We fund election observation, champion media freedom and provide leadership in different fora, and we will set that as a key priority as incoming co-chair of the Open Government Partnership.
Zöe Franklin (Guildford) (LD)
Caroline Voaden (South Devon) (LD)
Prior to last week’s talks with leaders of the British overseas territories, concerning reports suggested that the Government were planning to cave in to pressure from the British Virgin Islands, the epicentre of billions of pounds of tax evasion, and allow it to restrict public access to a register of company share ownership. Will the Secretary of State inform the House of the outcome of last week’s talks and reassure the British public that the Government will force British overseas territories to comply with the law and make these registers publicly available?
Stephen Doughty
The hon. Member can find the communiqué online. The Economic Secretary to the Treasury and I met the leaders from the overseas territories last week at a successful Joint Ministerial Council, and I again set out clearly our expectations on registers of beneficial ownership. I would point out that all OTs with financial centres have committed to upholding international tax standards, including those on tax transparency and exchange of information, as well as base erosion and profit sharing.
Harpreet Uppal (Huddersfield) (Lab)
Since the beginning of 2025, the United Nations Office for the Co-ordination of Humanitarian Affairs has documented more than 1,600 attacks in the west bank perpetrated by Israeli settlers. What more can the UK do in terms of sanctions for illegal settler outposts and settlement trade and to hold the Israeli Government to account?
Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab)
On Donald Trump’s threats of military action against oil-rich Venezuela, reports suggest that British military personnel are aboard the US warships heading towards Venezuela. Will the Foreign Secretary therefore make it clear that Britain will have no involvement at all, including through troops on US warships, in any Trump-led military intervention there?
Stephen Doughty
As the Foreign Secretary made clear a moment ago, the UK is not involved in these operations. There have been reports overnight, of which we do not know the full details and which the US will respond to. We have been very clear that we expect all nations to operate in line with international law.
Dr Ben Spencer (Runnymede and Weybridge) (Con)
The Elections Act 2022 expanded the franchise to over 3 million British nationals living overseas. As MPs, we have a duty to represent those who have lived in our constituencies, but we do not know who they are or where they are. How can our embassies help?
David Mundell (Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale) (Con)
The child nutrition fund is one of the most effective ways to enhance the impact and value for money of official development assistance spending by mobilising domestic resources, with philanthropic and private capital having the potential to multiply UK ODA contributions as much as sixfold. In 2023, the UK Government committed to a £16 million contribution to fund. Will Ministers confirm that the commitment will be honoured despite the changes in ODA spending?
Stephen Doughty
The right hon. Member has been a long-standing champion of these issues. We reaffirmed our commitment to addressing malnutrition at the Nutrition for Growth summit in 2025, as he knows, and we continue to support the child nutrition fund, which funds treatment of acute malnutrition. We are providing technical assistance and are supporting countries to integrate nutrition across sectors.
Baggy Shanker (Derby South) (Lab/Co-op)
With winter setting in and thousands of Gazan children still acutely malnourished, will my right hon. Friend work with international partners so we can go further and faster to help those children?
Jessica Morden (Newport East) (Lab)
We have seen a year of protests in Georgia against democratic backsliding and crackdowns on political opponents, which are deeply concerning, including for those in Newport with strong links to Kutaisi. What more can be done with allies to increase diplomatic pressure?
Stephen Doughty
We are deeply concerned by the democratic backsliding in Georgia and have issued a number of sanctions, as my hon. Friend will be aware. I have raised concerns directly with Georgian Dream representatives and will continue to follow the situation closely.
Sir Oliver Dowden (Hertsmere) (Con)
Today is UAE National Day, marking 54 years since its full independence. In that time, it has become one of our nation’s staunchest allies and a key investor, benefiting constituencies up and down the country. Will the Minister join me, as chairman of the all-party parliamentary group, in congratulating the UAE and recommitting to this key strategic relationship?