UK Delegation to the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe

Stephen Doughty Excerpts

Thursday 22nd May 2025 Written Statements

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

Baroness Drake has been appointed as a full member of the United Kingdom delegation to the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe in place of Baroness Taylor of Bolton.

Baroness Brown of Silvertown has been appointed as a substitute member in place of Baroness Wilcox of Newport.

[HCWS658]

Ukraine: Forcibly Deported Children

Stephen Doughty Excerpts

Wednesday 21st May 2025 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairpersonship, Mr Stuart. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South (Johanna Baxter) for securing this debate. I also thank hon. Members for their extraordinarily powerful and united contributions that send a strong message of support to Ukraine and Ukrainians from this House, and a strong message to Vladimir Putin, who is ultimately responsible for these wicked and heinous crimes.

I also welcome the delegation of Ukrainian officials who have been with us today—I do not think they are all still here—including Olena Kondratiuk, the Deputy Chair of the Verkhovna Rada. I hope that the contributions of right hon. and hon. Members have reassured our Ukrainian friends that this whole House stands with them, and will remain with them until Ukraine prevails. The raw emotion we have heard demonstrates that, when it comes to children, this House is united. Whether it is seeing the scenes in Gaza, Sudan or Ukraine—seeing the reality of what, in that case, Vladimir Putin has done—the plight of children unites us all, and should unite parliamentarians and legislatures around the world.

The forcible deportation of Ukrainian children is one of the most appalling aspects of Russia’s brutal invasion. As we have heard, approaching 20,000 children have been torn from their homes. Families and communities have been torn apart in this barbaric conflict, and the forcible removal of children to Russian areas along with the indoctrination and attempts to wipe out Ukrainian identity have shocked the world.

We believe that 6,000 children have been sent to so-called “re-education camps” to indoctrinate them with pro-Russian sentiment. It is very clear that this is an attempt not only to hurt Ukraine and its people now, but to hurt its future, as has rightly been reflected on. Let me be clear: Russia must end the deportation, exploitation and manipulation of Ukrainian children. They must be reunited with their families. We will do everything in our power as a Government to make that happen, and to ensure that those responsible for these crimes face justice.

Let me say again, as I have in a number of these debates, that this is personal for me. I have visited Ukraine three times since the start of Russia’s illegal invasion, including just a few months ago, and I also grew up studying alongside Ukrainians as a teenager in Canada and taught young Ukrainians in Lviv when I was younger. To think of those fellow schoolmates or the young people I taught being torn away from their families, culture, identity and language fills me with absolute horror. Going to places such as Bucha and not only seeing the reality of the atrocities faced at the start of the war, but the fact that children and other people are still missing, with no idea where they are, should be brought to all of our attention.

I have also heard at first hand from the different delegations that have come here of the trauma inflicted on Ukrainian children. In March, I met Deputy Foreign Minister Betsa, alongside Bring Kids Back Ukraine and Save Ukraine, and made it clear to them—I do so again now—that our support for returning children is unwavering. We discussed many ways we could expand and deepen our work together. Bring Kids Back gave me a painting by a child who was forcibly deported but, thankfully, has now returned. However, he is going through that trauma and is in art therapy. His painting hangs in my office and is a daily reminder of why this work matters.

Children must never be used as pawns of war, and those who do so must be held accountable. That is why we have given £11.3 million to help Ukraine document, investigate and prosecute war crimes. We have contributed £2 million to the International Criminal Court to gather evidence and support survivors more effectively. Going back to 2022, the UK led the way in bringing together allies to speed up an ICC investigation into alleged Russian war crimes in Ukraine. With 41 other countries now backing the UK, it is the largest referral in the ICC’s history. We welcome the progress the ICC is making with its independent investigations, which includes the arrest warrants issued for President Putin and the so-called children’s rights commissioner, Maria Lvova-Belova, for the illegal deportation and transfer of Ukrainian children.

[Mr James Frith (Bury North) (Lab)]

The Minister is giving a typically humane account of what we are debating and of what I have been able to see today. It shows real strength of feeling to see the House so united on such an appalling issue. I have one question for the Minister. Can he confirm whether, as we saw yesterday with the change in the muscularity of our engagement on the Israel-Gaza issue, the UK will formally recognise those mass abductions as a violation of international law? Will he also confirm that the return of those children must be a precondition to any final lifting of sanctions and the completion of a peace process?

[Stephen Doughty]

I have been very clear, as the Foreign Secretary was yesterday, that we respect the independence of international courts and judicial processes, including the ICC, as I mentioned. However, I am also happy to be clear that this must be resolved: Russia must return those children. We are clear that we will not lift our sanctions, and we reserve the right to take further measures, as we have done in the last 24 hours—and we will continue to do so.

I was asked many times about the UK’s specific efforts. We are working closely as a member of the International Coalition for the Return of Ukrainian Children, and with the Ukrainian Government. That includes initiatives to identify, locate and return children to their families, as well as collaboration on diplomatic efforts and the provision of financial and logistical support. Our overseas missions are hosting events to raise the issue locally in capitals around the world. To support the work to get the children returned, we are bringing together experts from a range of backgrounds, including from academia and industry, and from other countries that have also suffered from conflict. I discussed that with the Deputy Minister when she was here.

I have already mentioned Save Ukraine and the Bring Kids Back initiative. We are providing practical and political support to both. The Foreign Secretary has also been working with Mrs Zelensky to support Ukraine’s children. He met her in Kyiv in February to discuss her campaign to end the Soviet legacy of institutionalised care and instead promote family-based care and provide support to foster families.

I was asked by the shadow Minister, the right hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton), about our wider diplomatic efforts. We are continuing to work at the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe, where we are calling out Russia’s unacceptable actions and challenging their lies. We are also supporting the OSCE’s support programme for Ukraine and its fact-finding missions to expose human rights abuses, including deportation.

In December, our permanent representative was absolutely clear at the United Nations Security Council that Russia must stop these deportations and return Ukrainian children to their homes. We welcome the renewal of the UN’s independent international commission of inquiry on Ukraine, and we also note the significant role that Qatar is playing in mediating the return of Ukrainian children. We are grateful for its engagement. Those efforts are part of wider diplomatic initiatives involving others, including the Holy See and NGOs such as Save Ukraine. Around 900 children have returned thanks to those efforts.

[Sir Roger Gale (Herne Bay and Sandwich) (Con)]

I do not for one moment doubt the Minister’s sincerity or his determination to bring this to a satisfactory conclusion, but we all know that one of the keys to that is President Trump. Very little has been said, even in this debate, about the pressure that can and should be brought to bear on Trump and Putin together. The Minister does not have a magic wand, but will he make sure as far as he can that this issue does not come off the agenda and that it forms part of any settlement?

[Stephen Doughty]

The right hon. Gentleman can be assured that we raise a series of matters in our engagement with the United States, and we are working closely with President Trump and his Administration to find a just, lasting and sustainable ceasefire. We are working together with our European partners and the United States on that, as well as with President Zelensky and the Ukrainian Government. There have been many meetings in the last few days that the right hon. Gentleman and others will have seen. I can assure him that I raise the issue regularly. I met congressional delegations in the last few weeks, and I specifically raised this issue. There was broad bipartisan concern on it, and I will continue to raise it.

I again thank my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South for her powerful and passionate exposé of this wicked and heinous action by Putin’s regime. I fully endorse her fantastic work on the issue. It should unite us all in this House. Like many Members, my hon. Friend spoke powerfully of her visit to Ukraine, and she also asked about the Yale research. I wrote to her on that, and I want to add a correction to that. The data has now been sent to Europol, and we will endeavour to ensure that it gets to the Ukrainian Government Office of the Prosecutor General as soon as possible. We will be following up on that and I will update my hon. Friend as soon as we have further information.

The hon. Member for Chester South and Eddisbury (Aphra Brandreth) spoke about the importance of retaining our ODA support and humanitarian assistance. She will note that Ukraine, Gaza, Sudan have been all highlighted as areas to which we will continue to pay special attention, despite the cuts that we have to make. I have been looking at our programmes to see what more we can do over the weeks and months ahead.

I return to the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Glenrothes and Mid Fife (Richard Baker) about disabled children. I want to make clear that we have particularly focused on disability inclusion and rehabilitation services in the £5 million of support that we have provided. Indeed, we also supported that through the partnership fund for a resilient Ukraine. My hon. Friend made some important points and I will write to him just in case I have not got the figures exactly right to ensure that he has the exact numbers. I would not want inadvertently to mislead the House.

I know the hon. Member for Honiton and Sidmouth (Richard Foord) well, as we travelled to Ukraine together not long after the illegal invasion and saw the reality. He also spoke about the Yale research and raised the situation regarding Belarus, as other Members did. We are deeply concerned by the attendance of Ukrainian children at so-called “recreation camps” in Belarus, and we are following closely the investigations into those transfers. We call on Belarus to ensure that no Ukrainian children are forcibly transferred to, or via, its territory. I will continue to follow that very closely.

My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow West (Patricia Ferguson) spoke passionately about the local support in her constituency, which is similar to that in my Cardiff South and Penarth constituency.

The hon. Member for Woking (Mr Forster) asked how we are engaging with the United States, and I hope that I have answered that question. He spoke about important research into trauma and the work that needs to be done on that. We are providing a lot of mental health and psychosocial support. That is a crucial issue, and it is important that he raised it.

My hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South mentioned the national day of action. I note her and other hon. Members’ request, and I have asked officials to consider the merits of supporting it. I hope to be able to update her soon.

My hon. Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (James Naish) asked important questions about our own programmes. I can assure him that our concern for children will remain at the heart of those.

Hon. Members asked many questions about sanctions. As well as our wider Russia sanctions regime, we have already issued a number of rounds of sanctions in relation to this issue specifically. I will not comment on future designations, but I assure the House that we keep all such matters under close review.

The hon. Member for Horsham (John Milne) spoke passionately about his experience of the resilience and ingenuity of Ukrainians, which I have seen again and again. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) always speaks passionately about these issues. We must not stand idly by, as the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Lisa Smart) also made clear.

I have updated the House many times on seized assets, Chelsea and so on, and I will continue to keep the House closely informed. I hope to be able to update the House in due course on those matters, on which we are working at pace with international and other partners.

I reiterate that the UK will not let up until Ukraine’s stolen children are returned. This is a heinous, wicked and unforgivable crime, and I want to see action taken on it. We will continue to work with our allies, the brilliant campaign organisations I have mentioned and, of course, the Government of Ukraine to trace and return those children and to hold Russia to account.

Sanctions Implementation and Enforcement

Stephen Doughty Excerpts

Thursday 15th May 2025 Commons Chamber

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

With permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will make a statement on the cross-Government review of sanctions implementation and enforcement. I promised to update the House on this issue at the earliest opportunity, and I am glad to have the chance to do so today. For those Members who want to get into the full details, they are being published on gov.uk.

Sanctions are a powerful tool in our armoury, and a vital foreign policy and national security tool. They are used to deter and disrupt threats and malign behaviour, and to demonstrate our values. Our sanctions support UK interests, protect our citizens, and defend international peace and security. Maximising economic pressure on Russia is key to securing a just and lasting peace in Ukraine, as we debated in the House yesterday. As I said then, the UK has sanctioned over 2,400 targets under our Russia regime, and international sanctions have deprived Putin of $450 billion dollars since the invasion began—an amount of money that would have allowed him to prosecute this terrible war for many more years. Since July 2024, this Government have introduced over 500 new sanctions designations against individuals, entities and ships. Just last Friday, the Prime Minister announced a major package of sanctions to target the decrepit and dangerous shadow fleet carrying Russian oil. This is the largest package of sanctions against the shadow fleet, with 110 targets. According to some estimates, sanctions have crippled 200 ships—almost half of Putin’s entire fleet.

President Zelensky is serious about peace, agreeing in principle to a full, unconditional, and immediate ceasefire. His readiness for that peace is demonstrated by his being in Türkiye. Meanwhile, Putin has dodged and delayed, all the while raining down terror on Ukraine. If Putin does not engage seriously on peace, the UK and our allies will have no choice but to ramp up the economic pressure even further, forcing him to the table.

Alongside taking measures against Russia, we are using designations to uphold human rights and promote democracy around the world. Just last month, we targeted pro-Kremlin operatives responsible for destabilising Moldova, and we sanctioned corrupt officials in Georgia and Guatemala for undermining democracy and the rule of law. We will not stop there. We will continue to expose malign activity wherever we find it, using the full range of sanctions tools at our disposal to shape the world for the better. Sanctions play a crucial part in the Foreign Secretary’s mission to tackle corruption and dirty money, which is vital to protect the UK from criminals and safeguard our democracy. In January, the Foreign Secretary announced our new world-first legislation to use sanctions to crack down on those fuelling irregular migration.

This Government are committed not only to using sanctions effectively, but—this is the main focus of the statement—to ensuring that they are enforced rigorously. That means punishing serious breaches with large fines or criminal prosecutions. In opposition, we recognised that there was a need for greater focus on sanctions enforcement. Since we came to office, we have been working across Government on this, as well as liaising with law enforcement partners and industry. In October, we launched the office of trade sanctions implementation, which has new civil enforcement powers to crack down on those seeking to soften the blow of our sanctions. At the same time, we introduced civil powers for the Department for Transport to enforce transport sanctions.

We have reinforced the office of financial sanctions implementation in His Majesty’s Treasury—known as OFSI for short—and the multi-agency Joint Maritime Security Centre, enabling them better to tackle evasion and develop new tools targeting the Russian shadow fleet, including in the English channel. The investments and improvements that we have made are already paying off. Last month, OFSI imposed a penalty of £465,000 on a major law firm’s subsidiary for breaches of sanctions linked to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. We also saw the UK’s first successful prosecution under the Russia financial sanctions regulations, thanks to excellent work by the National Crime Agency. I commend it and its teams for the incredible work that they have done. I expect to see more enforcement action in the coming year—I obviously cannot go into the details of that in the House, but we should be assured that our teams are working effectively in a range of agencies and across Government.

Funding from the economic deterrence initiative has been critical to strengthening our capabilities and maintaining the UK’s reputation among its allies. That initiative is bolstering sanctions work in the overseas territories and Crown dependencies. For example, in the British Virgin Islands, it has enabled the NCA to support enforcement and combat potential circumvention. Excellent work has been going on in that regard, and we hosted OTs and CDs at Lancaster House just a few months ago, to collaborate and ensure that we are improving capability across those territories.

I turn to the enforcement review. I am determined to go after those who try to evade our sanctions. In October, I launched a cross-ministerial review to look at how we can improve UK sanctions implementation and enforcement. A strong sanctions regime is crucial for achieving our foreign policy goals and, in turn, building a secure and prosperous UK. This forward-leaning review had three goals: first, to make it easier to comply with our sanctions, which will help businesses to support us in our shared goals; secondly, to increase the deterrent effect of enforcement and make it clear that avoiding sanctions does not pay; and, thirdly, to enhance our ability to take robust action against those seeking to evade our measures. We are publishing the report on the conclusions today, and I am glad of this opportunity to set out how we will ensure that the UK’s approach continues to set a gold standard.

We know that the vast majority of businesses agree with our sanctions and are keen to work with us to make sure that they are enforced. To simplify compliance, we have launched a new email alert system to keep UK businesses updated on designations, legislation, licences, and other related topics. We are also making our guidance clearer and easier to access, providing further clarity to UK industry on ownership and control, and introducing a single sanctions list for all designated persons. We will also assess the benefits of creating a single reporting point for suspected breaches. To give our sanctions extra bite and deter evasion, we will publish a new enforcement strategy, making clear the consequences of non-compliance. We will look at new options to accelerate civil penalties for financial sanctions breaches, including via an early settlement scheme, and we are dedicated to strengthening our enforcement tools and ensuring that we have the necessary powers, capabilities, and intelligence.

We have already taken action. Last month, we introduced measures to prevent designated individuals from holding director roles in the UK, protecting our brilliant British businesses. The Department for Business and Trade is updating laws to protect workers who report breaches of financial, transport and certain trade sanctions, giving them crucial whistleblower protections. Those actions, taken together and at pace, will further improve our world-class sanctions regime, allowing the UK to project strength and promote the rule of law across the world.

But we are not satisfied with just those measures. We are committed to exploring other areas, so that we can go even further and deeper to improve enforcement. A number of those areas will take longer to scope; I will be able to update the House on them in due course. We will explore options for more effective join-up on intelligence, including the merits of a new joint sanctions intelligence function. We will consider the introduction of sanctions end-use licensing controls for exports with a high risk of sanctions diversion.

We will continue to support the British overseas territories and Crown dependencies in enhancing their enforcement capabilities, and will explore enhancing transport powers to target specific aircraft with sectoral sanctions. As appropriate, we will update Parliament when additional outcomes have been scoped, including those that require new or amended legislation. We have brought forward a number of pieces of sanctions legislation recently; in addition, we expanded our Russia regime this week into a range of areas, and varied our Syria regime in the light of changed circumstances there.

Let me conclude by reiterating this Government’s commitment to strengthening the implementation and enforcement of UK sanctions. As we deliver the actions set out in the review, we will continue to engage across Departments and with industry, wider stakeholders and international partners to maximise the effectiveness of our work. I commend this statement to the House.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)]

This is the third time in a week that the Minister and I have met across the Dispatch Box to debate sanctions. Once again, I thank him for advance sight of his statement.

Sanctions are imperative in supporting the rules-based international system and punishing those who breach those rules. The last Conservative Government placed sanctions on Assad and his cruel regime, and helped to lead a co-ordinated approach with our allies on Syria. Britain put in place sanctions on Iran, and worked with the US to reaffirm our shared commitment to opposing those who threatened peace, security and stability in the middle east. In 2021, the UK put in place sanctions, including asset freezes, on Chinese Government officials for gross human rights abuses. Britain led international efforts to sanction Putin and those behind his war machine in response to Russia’s illegal invasion of Ukraine. We put plans in place to set up the office of trade sanctions implementation, which, as the Minister said, was formally established in October. It was set up to bolster our trade sanctions capability, crack down on companies that breach trade sanctions, and co-ordinate across Government to ensure that sanctions are implemented effectively.

At the time, the Minister announced a cross-Government review. We have not yet seen the report, but I wish to press the Minister on a few points. First, what changes are being made to the sanctions implementation and enforcement framework? What role does OTSI play in any changes? The Minister refers to robust action to increase sanctions evasion deterrence, but what specific measures are being considered? He also mentions a new enforcement strategy; when can we expect that to be published? I would welcome clarity on how the new joint sanctions intelligence function fits into our existing intelligence framework. How does he envisage that working with what we are doing with the US and our other Five Eyes partners?

As I am sure the Minister appreciates, thanks to our leaving the European Union, we now have our own sanctions framework. The flexibility to set our own framework and lead the charge with allies and partners cannot be squandered. Does the Minister expect the EU security pact to touch on the independence of our sanctions regime? We should look to build on the strong measures that we have placed on countries and entities. What progress is being made in identifying further sanctions to impose on those already targeted?

Will the Minister give us an assessment of the number of groups and militia operating in Syria? How will he ensure that the relaxation in sanctions benefits the people of Syria? How often will he review the impact of the relaxation of sanctions? Will he commit to putting sanctions on entities and people in Syria if the standards that we expect in relation to protecting rights are not met? Will the Government consider introducing a new bespoke sanctions regime and set of regulations for Syria?

The critical mass of the current UK sanctions on Iran were introduced under the last Conservative Government. Sanctions form one part of the approach to tackling Iran, but what is the Minister’s broader strategy on Iran?

When we were in government, we imposed the largest and most severe set of sanctions that Russia had ever seen. The economic pressure that we have collectively imposed with the international community has crippled the Russian economy and deprived Putin of $400 billion that could have funded his illegal war. We cannot afford to let up on exerting that pressure on Putin’s war machine. Part of that includes tackling Russian assets. What consideration has the Minister given to deploying assets from the sale of Chelsea football club to support Ukraine? Will he confirm a timeframe for deploying that money?

I would welcome clarity on what information is coming forward to the Minister about potential sanctions breaches and loopholes that are being exploited. Does the review sufficiently plug the gaps that have been identified? Will he update us on what action he is taking against any third party countries that are supporting the countries and entities we have already sanctioned?

Finally, how does the Minister plan to deepen our international co-ordination? What discussions have the Government had with the United States? Did the Government have advance knowledge of yesterday’s announcement? Will it have a bearing on UK policy on sanctions on Syria? Sanctions are a crucial tool in our diplomatic arsenal. We must ensure that they operate as effectively as possible to ensure that international norms are adhered to.

[Stephen Doughty]

I thank the shadow Minister for her broad welcome for this work. I will do my best to answer as many of her questions as I can.

The shadow Minister asked me about the overall review. As I said, it is being published now and she can peruse that when she can; I encourage other hon. Members to look at that as well. We welcome feedback and suggestions on it. To summarise a couple of the key themes, we recognise that different sectors are at different levels of maturity with sanctions, and that Government communications and engagement need to reflect that. Some areas need more assistance; there is a lot of will, but they need support. Some of the measures can be very technical and we want to ensure that businesses can comply. Direct engagement between Government and industry is important, as that has the highest impact on compliance.

We need to bring together our efforts so that they are understood. A range of different agencies are doing important and distinct work, but that needs to be understood by the layperson. We need to improve our guidance and ensure we bridge any gaps in unclear regulations. We need to ensure that people understand the consequences of breaching sanctions, as well as the options. If they voluntarily disclose measures, as a number of businesses and others have done, there are ways forward.

The shadow Minister asked me about intelligence and co-operation with other countries, which is crucial. We will explore how that intelligence function works, but I can assure her that there is already a huge amount of co-operation between us and key partners, including in the United States, the EU and elsewhere. Cross-Government co-operation is also important. Our officials work incredibly hard and I pay tribute to the incredible team in the sanctions unit at the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, and in other Departments, because they do remarkable work.

The shadow Minister asked specifically about co-operation with the EU. It is important that we co-operate with the EU on sanctions, as we do already. That is being considered, along with a range of measures, as we approach the important summit next week. I assure her that our sanctions policy remains our own, but we can often have maximum effect when we work in co-ordination with others. The EU is progressing its own packages against Russia and others.

On third country circumvention, I have paid particular attention to that issue; indeed, I had meetings just this morning to raise concerns on that specific issue with a partner country. Such meetings are a feature of pretty much every week, and we are bearing down on all the routes that might support measures that undermine our sanctions. On the sale of Chelsea football club, we are determined to see the proceeds reach humanitarian causes in Ukraine as soon as possible, and we are doing everything we can to bring that about quickly, but this is a complex legal issue. The UK is working with international partners, has engaged with Abramovich’s team and is exploring all options to ensure that the proceeds reach vulnerable people in Ukraine who are most in need.

On Syria, the shadow Minister knows that we updated the regime this week, and we remain with those sanctions against the Assad regime, but we have removed restrictions on others. We reserve the right to introduce new sanctions in future circumstances on any regime, but we will keep the situation there under close review and respond to the changing circumstances. We will judge the new Government by their actions.

On Iran, we announced on 14 April further sanctions to tackle the domestic threat posed by the Iranian regime by sanctioning the Iranian-backed, Sweden-based Foxtrot criminal network and its leader, Rawa Majid, for their role in attacks against targets across Europe. We took very firm action in relation to the supply of ballistic missiles to Russia for use in the illegal war in Ukraine. We remain determined that Iran must never develop a nuclear weapon, and we are committed to using all tools available to ensure that, including using the UN sanctions snapback mechanism if necessary.

Lastly, the shadow Minister asked about enforcement, how we are having an impact and what difference is being made. I have already given some examples, but another example is that in April, the National Crime Agency secured the first criminal convictions for the breaches of Russian sanctions. Dmitry Ovsyannikov was found guilty of circumventing sanctions regulations and money laundering after receiving £76,000 from his wife and a new Mercedes from his brother, who was also found guilty of circumventing sanctions regulations. They were sentenced to 40 months imprisonment and 15 months imprisonment suspended for 15 months respectively, so the right hon. Lady can be absolutely assured that all the appropriate authorities are acting.

These investigations are often complex and necessarily are not made public. I urge the House to bear with some of our excellent teams in different agencies as they seek to enforce on these regimes.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee.

[Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab)]

The Minister already knows my view that, as we develop our sanctions policy, Parliament should be more engaged so that we can have collective knowledge and all feed in to the best possible sanctions policy. We do not have enough of that at the moment, and there is more that we should do. One thing that Members would do is suggest more creative ways of using sanctions and more lateral thinking, but, in the end, it does not matter how creative or eye-catching a sanction is: if it is not enforced, it means nothing. My concern, and the concern of many, is that there are simply not enough investigations being done for breaches of sanctions, particularly against British companies. I have listened very carefully to the rapid way in which the Minister gave his statement and read carefully what is in it, but nothing in it says that more resources will be put into actually investigating potential breaches of sanctions. We can change rules and give more powers, but if there are not enough people actually kicking down doors—literally or otherwise —to ensure that companies are not breaching sanctions, we are frankly wasting a fantastic opportunity.

[Stephen Doughty]

My right hon. Friend is no stranger to these issues, and it has been a pleasure to engage with her on them in my conversations with her. I welcome the work of her Committee in that regard. I gently say that there has been a significant amount of parliamentary scrutiny of sanctions—including two occasions this week already, as the shadow Minister mentioned, as well as the course of our debate, FCDO oral questions and my statement today—but I am absolutely committed to engaging with parliamentarians. We have held a number of roundtables, and I hope to continue to do those on a regular basis. We welcome all advice and information from parliamentarians. It is often not possible to come back to the House, particularly on specific information and suggestions. My right hon. Friend will understand the importance of our not commenting on possible future designations, because doing so would lessen their impact.

My right hon. Friend rightly raises the challenge of the actual resources for enforcement. They are across a range of agencies and Departments and are subject to ongoing discussions in the spending review, but, having witnessed the work of a number of those organisations, I can assure her that they are doing some absolutely incredible work. I will give another example: in March, the office of financial sanctions implementation announced the imposition of a civil monetary penalty of £465,000 against HSF Moscow for breaching UK sanctions and publicised the lessons that industry can learn from that case. There is example after example, and I want to see more of them. I will continue to work with our enforcement agencies and others to ensure that is the case.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Calum Miller (Bicester and Woodstock) (LD)]

I thank the Minister for advance sight of his statement. I welcome the cross-party consensus we have heard today that an effective sanctions regime is one of the most potent tools at our disposal to promote the UK’s ideals and interests abroad. It has formed a vital pillar in the strategy to punish Putin and undermine his ability to prosecute the war in Ukraine. However, our sanctions regime must be coherent and consistently applied to be effective. I know that the Minister is personally committed to that, and I welcome today’s report, yet the disparate responsibilities across Departments and agencies have sometimes worked against the effectiveness of our approach despite the hard work of officials, to which the Minister has already referred.

What lessons can the Minister point to from the review that will ensure that future development and application of our sanctions policy will be truly joined up across the many agencies in Government? Following President Trump’s meeting yesterday with President al-Sharaa, our approach to sanctions in Syria is a critical test of that approach. Can the Minister confirm that the Government will consider lifting further sanctions on Syria only if sanctions relief is preceded by clear progress towards political inclusion and the protection of minority groups and women in Syria?

The Minister knows that the Liberal Democrats have repeatedly urged the Government to use sanctions more robustly against the leaders of countries that have taken actions against British values or in violation of international law. May I therefore urge him to use the impetus from the review to take a fresh look at three cases? Will he and officials urgently review the application of sanctions on supporters of the Georgian Dream party, including Bidzina Ivanishvili and Irakli Kobakhidze, who are working to suppress democracy in Georgia? Will they review that for officials in Hong Kong who have led the suppression of democracy in the city and the extraterritorial intimidation of democracy campaigners resident in the UK? Will they also review that for the extremist members of the Israeli Cabinet, Ben-Gvir and Smotrich, who continue to advocate for the conquest of Gaza and the forced displacement of Palestinians from the occupied territories?

[Stephen Doughty]

I thank the Liberal Democrat spokesperson for his broad support for the thrust of these measures and agree with many of the points he made. He specifically asked me about Syria. We had an extensive discussion about this earlier this week, but I am absolutely clear that the sanctions on those individuals responsible for atrocities under the Assad regime remain in place. The changes that we have made are related to ensuring that financial and economic activity in line with the potential for peace and stability in Syria is able to emerge, but I assure him that we keep the situation under very close review and retain the ability to impose further sanctions and other measures at a future point. He made points about an inclusive political settlement and the absence of violence. We have seen some very worrying incidents in recent months, and we will watch very carefully and closely along with other partners and co-ordinate with others on that.

The hon. Gentleman also raised three specific contexts. He knows that I will not comment on future designations, but we always welcome input, and I note what he said. In relation to Georgia, we have sanctioned multiple individuals responsible in relation to the repressive actions and corruption that we have seen in recent months, and we keep the situation under close review. I am deeply concerned about the situation in Georgia. I have made that clear to Georgian Dream representatives, and I will make it absolutely clear again. Our teams are working very closely, and the hon. Gentleman knows that we have suspended wider co-operation with Georgia. That is a deep regret, because we had significant and positive relations with it, but as long as it turns away from the Euro-Atlantic path, there must be consequences, as well as consequences for the actions it has taken domestically and otherwise. I note what he has said, but, as he will understand, I will not comment on future designations.

[Melanie Ward (Cowdenbeath and Kirkcaldy) (Lab)]

The Minister is doing important work on sanctions that are highly relevant to the situation in the middle east, where Israel’s aid blockade means that large numbers of children in Gaza will begin dying of starvation in the coming days. It plans to dismantle the humanitarian system and replace aid workers with mercenaries. The Israeli Government are threatening the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians and calling up the military to make it happen, while British diplomats at the UN warn of genocide. This House cannot say, “Never again”, to atrocities unless it acts when faced with them. Does the Minister agree that the UK must uphold the responsibility to protect and that concrete action, including fresh sanctions on Israeli Ministers, are needed to stop Israel in its tracks, let aid in, get hostages out and force an urgent ceasefire?

[Stephen Doughty]

My hon. Friend speaks with typical passion and from her experience of these matters. She will know that we do not comment on potential future sanctions, but as the Foreign Secretary said in Parliament on 1 April, we continue to keep all these issues under review. The culture of impunity for those engaging in violence is intolerable, and the Foreign Secretary has also been clear with Israeli Ministers that the Israeli Government must clamp down on settler violence and settlement expansion—my hon. Friend will know the sanctions we have imposed in that regard. She will also know the actions we have taken against Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad and the designations that have been introduced, and that we have repeatedly called for an immediate ceasefire. We have restored funding to the United Nations Relief and Works Agency, suspended a number of our export licences and provided £129 million in humanitarian assistance, and we continue to work at every level to bring an end to the horrific violence we are seeing and the intolerable death toll. We will continue to work with all of our partners globally to achieve that.

[Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

Does the Minister agree that, now it is slowly dawning on President Trump that his friend Vladimir is stringing him along, there are good prospects that America will not weaken the level of sanctions it imposes on Russia? Can he also clarify one point? He said in his statement—and also yesterday evening—that if Putin does not engage seriously with peace, the UK and our allies will have no choice but to ramp up the economic pressure even further, forcing him to the table. I would have thought that we ought to be ramping up the economic pressure now to the maximum level that we can, so unless the Minister is just saying that that ramping up will take longer, can I suggest that the Government get on with it as quickly as possible?

[Stephen Doughty]

The right hon. Gentleman will know that we have been ramping up that pressure—indeed, the new measures we took just last night on support to Russia and its military industrial complex do exactly that, let alone the huge package of designations we have introduced against the shadow fleet. Again on the topic of enforcement, during its first six months of operation—from 1 October last year to 6 April this year—the UK’s voluntary insurance reporting mechanism has challenged 271 suspected shadow fleet vessels in the English channel on their insurance. Not only are we putting these measures in place, but we are following up on them. We have been very clear that President Zelensky is serious about peace—he has repeatedly shown that by his actions. Vladimir Putin has not. We are clear that our sanctions will remain in place and we will continue to do all we can to choke off support for the Russian war machine, which is causing such devastation in Ukraine.

[Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

Given that sanctions provide crucial leverage and deprive individuals and regimes of power and resources, it is vital that they are applied equally. When we see the effect that sanctions have had on Putin’s Russia, we question why the Government have not brought equality against the Israeli regime, whose treatment of the Palestinians is pushing people into starvation and famine and ultimately bringing 2.1 million people to their deaths. In light of Israel’s actions, we need equality, and while I understand that the Minister will not make pronouncements from the Dispatch Box today, could he set out how he formulates the evidence by which the thresholds are reached for sanctions to be applied? Will he look again at those frameworks to ensure that there is equality, so that we can use sanctions effectively and the world understands where this country is coming from?

[Stephen Doughty]

My hon. Friend asks about the broad principles that underlie our sanctions action. Essentially, there are three parts: the first is to deter malign activity, the second is to disrupt malign activity, and the third is to demonstrate values. As I referenced, we have imposed sanctions in relation to extreme settler violence, and we have worked with other partners on a range of measures. She will understand that I am not going to comment on future designations, as I said a moment ago, but we remain deeply seized of the situation in Gaza at present. The Minister for the middle east, my hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln (Mr Falconer), as well as the Foreign Secretary and others, are deeply engaged with this issue, and I have set out a number of the steps we have taken to respond to it.

My hon. Friend can be assured that we act around the world through our sanctions regime, and I have given a number of examples—not just geographic areas, but in relation to themes. I have mentioned the theme of tackling illicit finance and kleptocracy more widely. We have introduced a number of measures in that regard, so she can be assured that this is not simply about Russia and Ukraine sanctions, but about acting globally.

[Steve Barclay (North East Cambridgeshire) (Con)]

The right hon. Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry) and I do not agree on many issues, but she is absolutely right to focus on enforcement. Before coming to this place, I was head of sanctions and anti-money laundering at a financial institution, so with respect, I found it a bit naive for the Minister to say in his statement that avoiding sanctions does not pay; these are often very profitable accounts. He also referenced the issue of compliance in his statement, but institutions often say that they are complying by filing suspicious activity reports, safe in the knowledge that insufficient action will be taken. I appreciate that the stock answer is, “We do not comment on individual enforcement cases”, but could the Minister tell us the average cost of a successful prosecution for a sanctions breach, and how many there have been since the Government came to office?

[Stephen Doughty]

The right hon. Gentleman knows the industry and these measures—of course, he also held senior roles in government that were responsible for these matters—so he will understand that I am not going to go into the technical details of every individual case. However, I can tell him that, for example, His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs has issued six compound settlements since 2022 against UK companies that have breached the Russia trade sanctions, for a total of £1,363,129. Those include a compound settlement in August 2023 for £1 million, so I feel absolutely justified in saying that avoiding sanctions does not pay, and I am committed to ensuring that we have more of these actions in future. Some of them will be public, while others will not be—a range of measures is in place. We are introducing new powers, particularly to find ways of settling cases in which companies have come forward and voluntarily disclosed, but equally so that those that do not do so will face penalties.

[Lloyd Hatton (South Dorset) (Lab)]

Too often, sanctions evasion happens via our British overseas territories, particularly through secretive havens such as the British Virgin Islands, and a lack of public ownership records complicates efforts to find out who is involved in sidestepping our sanctions regime. With that in mind, can the Minister set out how he is working with all of the overseas territories to finally meet their commitments to introduce registers of beneficial ownership, and can he reassure this place that our sanctions are robustly enforced across the entire UK family?

[Stephen Doughty]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right to raise this issue, which I have repeatedly raised with the leaders of the overseas territories and indeed with the Crown dependencies. We have seen robust action on sanctions, both in implementing sanctions and working with our authorities to ensure that we have the biggest enforcement effect. I have mentioned the recent meetings we had at Lancaster House with sanctions enforcement officials, as well as the specific example of BVI. The National Crime Agency has been working with the British Virgin Islands on a range of issues, and that work has been very productive, but my hon. Friend is absolutely right that transparency contributes to effective sanctions. I have repeated my expectation that OTs and CDs should introduce fully accessible public registers of beneficial ownership, but the OTs also agreed at last year’s Joint Ministerial Council to introduce legitimate interest access registers. We have seen real progress from a number of them, although some others are not quite there yet. My hon. Friend can be assured that I am not resting in raising serious concerns about this issue, and I will continue to do so over the weeks ahead.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call Richard Foord, a member of the Select Committee.

[Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)]

The G7 oil price cap prevents us from selling shipping and insurance services to companies carrying Russian oil when it is sold above $60 per barrel. I appreciate that the Minister might say that he cannot preannounce future sanctions—I think we all understand that—but has the UK advocated with G7 allies for reducing that price cap further, given that in recent weeks, the price of crude oil has dropped below $60 per barrel?

[Stephen Doughty]

The hon. Gentleman raises a very important issue. I will not comment on future actions, but since the introduction of the oil price cap, data from the Russian Ministry of Finance showed a 30% reduction in tax revenues from oil in 2023, compared with the year before. The price it has received for flagship Urals-grade crude has continued to sit below global levels, and our work—particularly on the shadow fleet—has significantly disrupted and impacted the revenues that Putin is able to get from oil to fuel his war in Ukraine. We will consider all possible lawful measures to further strengthen our efforts in that regard, but the best way to do so is by working with our international partners. We are engaged in daily conversations on these matters, but of course, I will not comment on future specific actions.

[Johanna Baxter (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend for his statement. Will he commit to investigating whether further sanctions are required on regional, federal, military and legal enforcement agencies that have been involved in and made possible the continued mass abduction and deportation of Ukrainian children to Russia? At the very least, will he commit to ensuring that the UK aligns its sanctions against individuals involved in this forcible transfer of children with those imposed by the United States and the European Union?

[Stephen Doughty]

My hon. Friend raises a crucial point, and she knows of my personal support and indeed that of the Foreign Secretary on this important issue. She knows that we have already designated individuals in this regard. We continue to keep all future sanction possibilities under review. We will look closely at examples of anybody involved in that heinous action of taking Ukrainian children away from their families and attempting to wipe out their culture and identity.

[Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)]

As the sanctions regime ramps up, although perhaps not as quickly as my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis) calls for—I endorse that call—the Minister is right to be doing the work he is doing. As part of his review and assessment as those sanctions ramp up and become more complicated, does he feel that everything possible is being done to ensure that UK-based businesses are kept up to date with that changing picture, so that no one inadvertently falls on the wrong side of the law?

[Stephen Doughty]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to raise that issue. The vast majority of UK businesses and individuals want to comply with these regimes. They support them, and they certainly do not want to be exposing themselves or their customers to any additional risk. We want to make sure that they have the best advice in a timely, clear and understandable fashion. That is exactly what some of the measures in this review are set out to do. They consolidate information and how it is provided and ensure that there is training and capacity-building in sectors that are perhaps less used to enforcing in these areas. He can be assured that that is very much at the heart of what we are doing, because we want to help people to comply.

[Patricia Ferguson (Glasgow West) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend makes a powerful case for the efficacy of sanctions in achieving our diplomatic and foreign policy aims, but as we observe the 50,000 deaths, the countless injuries, the forced displacement, and now the possibility of mass starvation and the renewal of bombing of hospitals by Israel in Gaza, is it not time that sanctions were applied to Ministers such as Smotrich and Ben-Gvir? It is perfectly understandable for the Minister to say that he will not discuss future designations in the Chamber, but will he consider and discuss with colleagues the strength of feeling in this Chamber that sanctions must be placed on these individuals sooner rather than later?

[Stephen Doughty]

My hon. Friend raises important and serious issues. She knows that we have repeatedly condemned the extreme rhetoric of far-right Israeli Ministers. We have taken action against violent settler groups in the west bank. We are regularly supporting the humanitarian response in Gaza, whether that is through the £129 million of humanitarian assistance, the medical treatment and food, the work we have done with Jordan to fly medicines in or the work with Egypt to treat medically evacuated civilians and with Kuwait to support UNICEF. There is a range of measures, but she will understand that I will not comment on future designations.

[Iqbal Mohamed (Dewsbury and Batley) (Ind)]

The UK rightly has imposed sanctions on Russia for its illegal invasion of Ukraine and on Putin for war crimes. The UK has imposed sanctions on officials in Syria for breaches of international humanitarian law, for targeting hospitals, schools and aid convoys and for obstructing humanitarian aid, as well as for the use of chemical weapons and the indiscriminate bombing of civilians. How do the Government therefore justify the absence of similar sanctions on senior members of the Israeli Government, when there is clear evidence of Israel perpetrating the same violations? What actions have the UK Government taken to comply with their obligations specified in the International Court of Justice advisory opinion from July 2024 to withdraw all political, economic and diplomatic support that helps perpetuate Israel’s unlawful occupation of Palestine?

[Stephen Doughty]

The hon. Gentleman raises a number of questions, and it might be helpful if I get the Minister for the middle east, my hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln (Mr Falconer) to respond to him directly on a number of them. We have repeatedly been clear, as I have just said, in condemnation of the extreme rhetoric of far-right Israeli Ministers. We have been clear about the horrific situation that we see in Gaza. We have been clear about the support we are providing to make a difference on the ground. We have been clear in our support for a ceasefire and clear in our calls for immediate humanitarian access. As I have said repeatedly, he will understand that I do not comment on future designations.

[Josh Fenton-Glynn (Calder Valley) (Lab)]

Can my hon. Friend update us on what conversations have been had about the use of frozen and sanctioned Russian assets to support those fighting Russian aggression in Ukraine?

[Stephen Doughty]

That is an important question that has come up a number of times this week. My hon. Friend will know that we have already disbursed the first two tranches under the extraordinary revenue acceleration scheme, which is making a tangible difference to Ukraine right now. We have put £2.26 billion into the scheme, and I again thank colleagues for ensuring the swift passage of that measure. We are resolute in that support. We are continuing to explore all other lawful options. We are clear—at least, the majority of parties in this House are—that Russia needs to pay for the damage it has caused, but the most impact will be felt if we can work with partners and in collaboration with others.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the Minister for his answers and for returning to the Chamber within 24 hours of his comments about Russian sanctions yesterday. I read an interesting article on financial sanctions that highlighted the alleged loopholes that are enabling sales and transfers of funds through estate agents, property management and so on. Can the Minister outline whether the Department’s approach will also deal with those UK citizens who may be enabling Russian assets to be diverted and therefore the circumvention of sanctions, which are right and proper?

[Stephen Doughty]

The hon. Gentleman will know that there are significant civil and criminal penalties for the evasion of sanctions. If he or any other Member of the House has any evidence of that, I hope that they would share that with us and the relevant authorities, and we are looking at a single reporting point for people to do that. He can be assured that we look at every way in which people are trying to circumvent the sanctions regimes. We cannot have London, the UK or our British family being a place for those who enable this type of activity. We are resolute and committed to cracking down on it.

[Mark Sewards (Leeds South West and Morley) (Lab)]

I welcome the Minister’s statement. It is fairly obvious that these sanctions are essential in deterring the kinds of behaviours and activities that we do not want to see internationally. The Foreign Secretary has spoken about introducing sanctions against those involved in smuggling gangs and those who cause irregular migration to the UK. The Minister made reference to it in his statement, too. Will he update the House on when we can expect to see such sanctions take effect? Will he also comment on their effectiveness in dealing with and defeating the criminal smuggling gangs?

[Stephen Doughty]

This Government have been clear that we will take every measure possible to crack down on irregular migration and those who facilitate the cruel trade in human beings, trafficking them across continents and countries. That is one of the reasons we are introducing the new regime. We will be bringing forward the legislation in due course, and at that time we will be able to discuss the exact details of the proposals; we aim to bring that forward as soon as possible so that we can start taking actions. That is just one of the measures we are taking, and I regularly engage with European and other partners to deal with the whole chain of smuggling gangs and illegal migration. That is exactly what the Prime Minister will be setting out in his visit to Albania.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

The final question goes to the ever-patient Chris Vince.

[Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)]

I thank the Minister for his statement. Listening to comments from across the House, I am reminded of a conversation I had this week with one of my constituents, Anne Strike, who is a victim of polio; she raised her concerns about the recent cases of polio found in conflict zones. I know how important residents of Harlow see it to tackle breaches of UK-imposed sanctions. The Minister has touched on this a bit already, but will he tell me what progress we have seen on enforcement measures in recent months?

[Stephen Doughty]

I am delighted that the residents of Harlow not only have my hon. Friend as an MP, but are interested in seeing these measures being effected. I think that is shared across the United Kingdom: people want to see these measures work. I have given a number of examples, but I will give him another. The Department for Transport has detained four transport assets under the Russian sanctions regulations: one helicopter, two private jets and one super-yacht, totalling more than £80 million. I hope the House can see today just how serious we, our enforcement agencies and all our Departments are. It is fantastic to be working in a team across Government on this issue. I again pay tribute to the fantastic officials, not only in the Departments but in our enforcement agencies. They bring the pressure to bear on those who seek to evade or divert from our sanctions regimes.

Gavi and the Global Fund

Stephen Doughty Excerpts

Thursday 15th May 2025 Westminster Hall

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

It is a genuine pleasure to serve under your chairpersonship, Ms Jardine, and to respond to such a passionate and well-attended debate on a subject that many Members here in Westminster Hall today know is close to my heart.

I am particularly grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes Central (Emily Darlington) for securing this debate. Of course, as well as being an excellent representative for Milton Keynes, she has many connections with me and with my constituency in Penarth, and I have connections with Milton Keynes that link to the subject of this debate, because it was in Milton Keynes that I first worked for World Vision, the international humanitarian and development NGO.

At that time, I worked in particular on ] issues related to HIV and AIDS. On a visit to Malawi with World Vision back in the early 2000s—they were very different times, when we had not made the progress that we have made today—I saw for myself the devastating impact that HIV and AIDS had on communities in southern Africa. I remember sitting in a village with a woman who had had to take on the care of her sister’s children after her sister had died in her 20s. She had already been struggling to make ends meet, but then took on the children of her sibling on top of that. That was really stark stuff that I will never forget.

I have worked on these issues throughout my career. Indeed, I was at one of the early launches of the IFFIm bonds with Gordon Brown and at many of the other events and efforts organised by the last Labour Government that my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes Central rightly said we should be very proud of. I also served as the co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on HIV, AIDS and sexual health, and it is fantastic to see some of my successors in that role here in Westminster Hall today. That APPG is one of Parliament’s longest-established APPGs and I can genuinely say that it has also been one of the most impactful over many decades, and is still doing important work today.

This is absolutely a timely moment to debate these issues, with the Gavi and Global Fund replenishments coming up later this year, and I am hugely grateful to all right hon. and hon. Members here today for their contributions. I can absolutely assure them that the Government hears those communications and that they will be communicated to Minister Chapman, my colleague in the other place. We will look very closely at a number of the points that have been raised today.

We should be very proud of our remarkable achievements over the last 20 years and we must maintain that positive trajectory, which includes increasing life expectancy and stopping the spread of pandemics. As has been said many times, disease respects no borders, and of course it has a devastating impact, not only on lives but on economies. Of course, the life-saving research to fight disease also has a benefit economically, as many hon. Members have already pointed out.

[Dr Rupa Huq in the Chair]

I can confirm, Dr Huq, that the UK will continue to champion global health, with the sustainable development goals as our lodestar and anchoring our work. Our partnerships with Gavi and the Global Fund are crucial to maintaining—indeed, to accelerating—progress. Of course, we are founding members and committed supporters of both organisations.

The Global Fund plays a crucial role, and I have worked with it many times on strengthening health systems and combating HIV and AIDs, tuberculosis and malaria. Of course, it also supports the UK’s goal to end all new HIV cases in England by 2030 and efforts across the United Kingdom to end new HIV infection. Malaria, which has been rightly referred to today, primarily affects women and children. It puts a significant strain on health systems and hinders economic growth. Nigeria, for example, accounts for more than a quarter of global malaria cases and loses more than $8 billion annually to the disease. There is also the devastating impact on lives and families. Our partnership with the Global Fund demonstrates the importance we place on working in partnership with others around the world and in the global south. Together we have saved a remarkable 65 million lives and reduced AIDS, TB and malaria deaths by more than 60%. We have also built more resilient and sustainable health systems and accelerated progress towards universal healthcare coverage.

Gavi is a hugely important organisation whose work I have had the pleasure of seeing in this country and elsewhere. It is of course a public-private partnership with national Governments, the World Health Organisation, UNICEF and civil society, which is critical. Many Members mentioned those connections in procuring and providing affordable vaccines. Through Gavi, more than half the world’s children are now vaccinated against some of the world’s deadliest diseases, such as measles, malaria and meningitis, saving more than 18 million lives. It has been pointed out that a child born in a Gavi-supported country today is 70% less likely to die from a vaccine-preventable disease before their fifth birthday than a child born before that crucial alliance came into existence.

Every investment brings economic benefits, too. For every £1 of investment in immunisation, we see £54 in wider economic benefits. We are working with Gavi and other donors, including the Gates Foundation, to reach more children with lifesaving vaccines than ever before. Investments in Gavi and the Global Fund also drive real innovation. British expertise has transformed the fight against HIV/AIDS, TB and malaria through licensing and technology transfer, and by developing innovative technologies such as new dual active ingredient bed nets, which were piloted with support from Unitaid and the Global Fund and are now being rolled out at scale by the Global Fund.

Investment has also supported the development of vaccines such as MenFive to protect against the five main types of meningitis. Gavi delivered 5.1 million doses of MenFive in Niger and Nigeria.

[David Mundell]

The Minister made a passing reference, as other Members did, to Unitaid. Will he more formally acknowledge the huge importance of Unitaid in ensuring the delivery of medicines in some of the most difficult environments around the world?

[Stephen Doughty]

I absolutely will. It is referenced throughout my briefings because of the important partnership and contacts that we have with Unitaid. I have seen its work as well.

We are delighted to be co-hosting the Global Fund’s eighth replenishment with South Africa. We aim to attract and deepen investor engagement, sustain collective investments, and collaborate with the private sector on financing, innovation and supply chain support. We will do everything possible to ensure the success of that replenishment. Last month, the Children’s Investment Fund Foundation made an impressive first pledge of $150 million, a fivefold increase of its previous investment. That extraordinary commitment underscores the significant role of private philanthropy in advancing global health equity and highlights the power of partnership. As countries work to increase domestic financing, we must stand together and strive for success in those replenishments. We know this is an incredibly important moment for all these issues.

Many Members have rightly asked me about financial commitments—I have heard the voices around this room. Members will understand that we cannot make any financial commitments for the next replenishment until after the spending review is complete, but I assure them that we will continue to champion the Global Fund and Gavi and the people they serve, as well as the issues that have been raised today. Members’ voices and those of their constituents have been heard. None of us want to make decisions about cuts to the ODA budget, not least because of our record of success on these issues, but when I look at some of the things I do every day, I can say that they are the right choices, although difficult. We remain committed, however, to international development and particularly to global health. The number of interventions on these issues have made that very clear across the House.

I will reply briefly to some specific points made. My hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes Central spoke about the wider benefits not only to the economy, but in terms of our research and the links to the covid vaccine research. I saw some of the pioneering RNA vaccine research in visits with the all-party group years ago. To then see that expertise used to combat a deadly pandemic was extraordinary.

The right hon. Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale (David Mundell)—my successor on the all-party parliamentary group on HIV, AIDS and sexual health—rightly talked about this being investment, not charity. I think there is a consensus across the House on the proven track record of the Global Fund, Gavi and Unitaid.

My hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Steve Race) mentioned his visit to Kenya and the links with nutrition as well. He knows the Government’s commitment to the global compact on nutrition and the work that was done around the summit and indeed the research in his own constituency. I thank the hon. Member for North East Fife (Wendy Chamberlain) for her contribution. Her constituency is a place I know well, having done my masters at the University of St Andrews. Important work is being done at that university and at many institutions across the UK.

My hon. Friend the Member for Norwich North (Alice Macdonald) asked important questions about women and girls. I can assure her that women and girls remain at the heart of our global health work. Gavi supports countries with vaccines that directly benefit girls and women, for example those against HPV, which we know is one of the leading causes of cervical cancer. Shockingly, over 85% of cervical cancer deaths are in low-income countries, and it is the main cause of death among many young women in Africa. Women and girls therefore remain at the heart of these partnerships going forward.

The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), who is no longer here, as ever spoke passionately on the issues. My hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Sojan Joseph) spoke about the importance of work on TB. We are absolutely committed to this, whether through the Global Fund, Stop TB Partnership or our work with the TB Alliance. We are doing many pieces of research and operations work.

My hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Tim Roca) spoke about malaria, as did others. On that, there is really remarkable process being made on vaccines. Some of the early findings from the malaria vaccine implementation programme show that an additional one in eight children can be prevented from dying if they receive vaccines in combination with other malaria interventions. We are carrying on the important work on anti-malarial bed nets and other interventions.

My hon. Friend the Member for Gedling (Michael Payne), another of my successors in the APPG on HIV/AIDS, again spoke of the importance of the Global Fund, and I completely agree with him.

My hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham (Dr Sullivan) spoke about her experience working at the Francis Crick Institute, another leading institution doing incredible work. We should be very proud of our academics and researchers in this country for what they do.

My hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Sam Rushworth), a powerful voice for his constituents, also spoke of his own personal experiences in sub-Saharan Africa.

[Iqbal Mohamed]

Will the Minister give way?

[Stephen Doughty]

I will not, because we are about to run out of time and I need to leave time for my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes Central to wind up.

The shadow spokespeople raised a number of choices. I do have to gently say to the hon. Member for Esher and Walton (Monica Harding) that we are not in 1997. We are in a very different set of world circumstances. That is tough, but I believe in being honest with this House about the challenges we face. That does not mean we lose our commitment to development or global health, as is clear from what the Government are setting out, and I have listened carefully to what Members have said today.

Not only did the right hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton) serve as the Minister; we also served on the International Development Committee together. She rightly talks about the important role that IFFIm and others can play—I might write to her more specifically on the plans on IFFIm. She asked me lots of questions about the spending review. I would love to be tempted into answering her, but I cannot, so I refer her to my previous answers.

The UK will continue to champion global health at a critical moment. We will work hard, together with our partners. We have heard about some fantastic work we have been responsible for and about some fantastic organisations. I can assure Members that the Government hear all of those voices, and they will be contemplated as we make some challenging but important decisions over the weeks and months ahead.

Sanctions

Stephen Doughty Excerpts

Wednesday 14th May 2025 Commons Chamber

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

I beg to move,

That the Russia (Sanctions) (EU Exit) (Amendment) Regulations 2025 (SI, 2025, No. 504), dated 22 April 2025, a copy of which was laid before this House on 23 April, be approved.

This instrument amends the Russia (Sanctions) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019. It was laid before Parliament on 23 April under powers in the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Act 2018, and the measures in the regulations, which subject to the affirmative procedure, entered into force on 24 April. Sanctions are a powerful tool in our armoury. They play an important part in promoting peace and security abroad, upholding international norms and rules, and protecting our citizens at home. Since coming into power, this Government have ramped up action with our partners, and that includes leading the way on targeting Russia’s revenues, bearing down on its military industrial complex, and deterring and disrupting Iran’s support for Russia.

Just last Friday, the Prime Minister announced a major package of sanctions to target the decrepit and dangerous shadow fleet carrying Russian oil. It is the largest package of sanctions against the shadow fleet, with 110 targets. According to some estimates, sanctions have crippled 200 ships, almost half of Putin’s dedicated fleet. The Government’s support for Ukraine remains steadfast. Our total support for Ukraine now stands at £18 billion, including £3 billion a year of military aid and our £2.26 billion contribution to the G7 extraordinary revenue acceleration loans scheme.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

First, I commend the Minister on bringing the measure forward. I do not think there is anybody in this House who would not be encouraged by what the Minister and Government are doing in bringing in the sanctions. The one thing that always concerns everybody—the Minister knows this—is the £22.7 billion of frozen Russian assets. We all wish to know whether the Government can pursue those assets with a vengeance and an evangelical zest. That would be a better zest than any other. If we put a squeeze on the frozen Russian assets, we can use them for the benefit of Ukraine, and strengthen everyone who supports Ukraine.

[Stephen Doughty]

I thank the hon. Gentleman again for his steadfast support for Ukraine, and for raising this important issue. As I said, we have already ensured that important resources get to Ukraine. Thanks to the speedy passage of measures through this House, and support from all parts of the House, we made sure that happened, and it is making a tangible difference. Two thirds of the ERA loan scheme funding that I mentioned has been disbursed and is immediately supporting Ukraine in obtaining vital military equipment. He rightly asks about frozen Russian sovereign assets more widely. As the Foreign Secretary said yesterday, we are working apace with international partners to look at all lawful means of ensuring that Russia pays for the horrific damage and destruction that it has done in Ukraine. I can assure the hon. Gentleman on that point. We will of course come back to the House in due course to update Members.

[Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

The Minister referred to the attempts to cripple the ghost ships and fleet. Does that have any effect on the shipments of oil to third parties, such as India, that refine the oil and then sell it on to countries that, like us, are trying to sanction Russia directly?

[Stephen Doughty]

The right hon. Gentleman asks an important question. We take up all possible avenues of limiting Putin’s war machine and the energy revenues that go towards it. We keep all options under consideration, and we look at them carefully. As he knows, I will not comment on any future actions or designations for obvious reasons, but I can tell him that this action on the shadow fleet has had a significant real-time impact on Putin’s ability to wage war. I have given this figure on a number of occasions, but our sanctions programme overall has denied Russia $450 billion, which would have been enough to keep this war going for many more years. The action has had a tangible impact. Action taken under the last Government, and the action taken by this Government, which has been accelerated, is having a real impact on Putin’s war machine. Again, I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his consistent support for Ukraine, and his support for these measures.

We are absolutely committed to securing a just and lasting peace in Ukraine. Maximising economic pressure on Russia is key to that, which is why we are continuing to introduce sanctions. We have now sanctioned more than 2,400 entities and individuals under the Russia regime. UK sanctions have also frustrated Russian trade: Russian imports to the UK have fallen by more than 98% since the invasion, and UK exports to Russia are down by more than 80%. We will maintain the relentless pressure on Putin, alongside our allies, to force him to the table and ensure that he engages seriously in negotiations. We reiterate our call on Russia to accept a full, unconditional ceasefire in Ukraine in order to create the space for talks on a just and lasting peace, and we commend President Zelensky for making his own commitment to peace by expressing his openness to engaging in direct talks with Putin. On Monday, the Foreign Secretary hosted Foreign Ministers from the Weimar+ group of key European allies to discuss our joint efforts to strengthen European security and secure a just and lasting peace in Ukraine. The House can be assured that these conversations form part of all our engagement with partners and allies across the world; indeed, I had such conversations today.

Now is the time for Putin to come to the table, and for Russia to show that it is serious about ending this war or else face the consequences. The UK stands ready to ratchet up the pressure on Russia, so that it ends its brutal war of aggression. As I have said, we will continue to explore all measures through which we can ratchet up economic pressure. The statutory instrument allows us to go even further in our efforts to target Russia’s revenue streams and prevent the Kremlin building its military and industrial capabilities. It introduces a package of more than 150 new trade sanctions, including new, innovative measures that will prevent UK expertise from being used in Russia’s defence and energy sectors. It will deny Russia sophisticated UK technology and software, and will expand our prohibitions, with the aim of further constraining Russia’s economic growth and ability to fuel its war machine.

Let me deal with each of the measures in the instrument. First, it introduces new export prohibitions that apply to a wide range of goods, including chemicals, plastics, metals, machinery and electronics. These prohibitions will deny Russia the means of procuring products that have military and industrial uses. Secondly, we are extending our prohibitions on the transfer of technology, applying them to a broader set of technologies relating to goods that are important for Russia’s military-industrial sectors, and for its economic development. Through these measures, we are removing UK expertise—whether in intellectual property, blueprints or industrial know-how—from Putin’s critical supply chains.

Thirdly, the instrument will ban the transfer of software relating to business enterprise, industrial design, and oil and gas exploration and production. As has been said, Putin relies on energy production and exports to fuel his war economy, so the aim of these sanctions is to make key sectors of the Russian economy less productive and therefore less able to fuel this illegal and barbarous war against Ukraine. Fourthly, we are banning the import of Russian synthetic diamonds that have been processed in third countries, and helium. This targets future funding sources that Russia is developing, as well as potential circumvention routes. Finally, the instrument clarifies the enforcement responsibilities for a small number of trade sanctions on Russia. This will enable the office of trade sanctions implementation in the Department for Business and Trade to enforce certain trade sanctions offences, and to refer serious offences to His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs for criminal enforcement consideration.

This Government remain committed to European security, and to our steadfast support for Ukraine. We are committed to standing up for the values of democracy and the rule of law, values that continue to be attacked so brutally by Russia. Sanctions, including this important package, are a key part of our efforts, and I commend the regulations to the House.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the shadow Minister.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Doughty]

I thank all right hon. and hon. Members who have contributed to this debate. The measures introduced by this statutory instrument show how the UK continues to use its powers to apply further pressure on Putin, which, crucially, is to help secure an enduring peace and show that we remain fully behind Ukraine. I really welcome the strong support there always is across this House, from almost everybody—I note that one party is absent again. We have strong support, and although we may have disagreements with the Official Opposition across the Dispatch Boxes, but on Ukraine there has been absolute unity. I am glad that that has continued, and I thank them for that, and indeed the Liberal Democrats and other parties, too.

[Robin Swann (South Antrim) (UUP)]

On the regulations, does the Minister agree that work also needs to be done on the shadow oil fleet, which is out there supplying money and support to Putin?

[Stephen Doughty]

The hon. Gentleman might have missed it earlier on, but I outlined the significant work that we have done on that, including targeting hundreds of vessels, which is having a real impact. I will come to that impact in a moment.

The shadow Minister, the right hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton), asked a number of specific questions. She asked about third-country circumvention and the measures we are taking diplomatically—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

Order. We must now take the motion relating to deferred Divisions.

DEFERRED DIVISIONS

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 41A(3)),That, at this day’s sitting, Standing Order No. 41A (Deferred divisions) shall not apply to the Motionin the name of Stephen Doughty relating to Sanctions.—(Kate Dearden.)

Question agreed to.

[Stephen Doughty]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I had forgotten about that particular procedural aspect of talking past 7 o’clock. Thank you for giving me the eye to remind me that that was coming; I appreciate it.

As I was saying, on third-country circumvention, the shadow Minister asked me what measures we are taking. I can assure her and the House that this has been an extremely high priority for me and the Foreign Secretary. I regularly raise issues and we have a number of countries that we are particularly focused on. We have the common high priority list of items that are of most value to Russia’s military industrial complex. I assure her that we have also taken robust action against entities and individuals who have been involved in those matters. We have set out a number of those measures in past sanctions packages. I raise them on an almost weekly basis to try to bear down on that.

The right hon. Lady asked about the proceeds from Chelsea football club. We are determined for the proceeds to reach humanitarian causes in Ukraine as soon as possible, and we are doing everything we can to bring that about quickly. The shadow Minister will understand that this is a complex legal issue, but we are working with our international partners. We have engaged with Abramovich’s team and we are exploring all options to ensure that the proceeds reach vulnerable people in Ukraine who are most in need.

The right hon. Lady asked about the tranches of the ERA funding. I can assure her that two of the tranches, over two thirds of that funding, is already out the door. I spoke to Ukrainian Ministers about that and its availability, and they confirmed that they had access to it. She asked a detailed question about why it is being done in three tranches. I have just written to the shadow Foreign Secretary to set that out in more detail. We can make sure that she gets a copy of that letter. There are technical and other reasons for that, but we are ensuring that Ukraine gets what it needs right now, and is able to plan and deliver in its own defence.

The right hon. Lady asked, as others did—it was raised by the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Lewes (James MacCleary)—about Russian sovereign assets. I repeat what I said to my friend the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), which is that we are working at pace on that with others. We are exploring all lawful options to ensure that Russia pays. We have been leading; we have not been lagging. Indeed, the ERA loan is very much a testament to our leadership on this issue and I can assure the Liberal Democrat spokesperson that we are engaging very closely with international partners on that, as the Foreign Secretary said yesterday.

The right hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton) rightly talked about the importance of continued and absolute support for Ukraine. I can assure her that that is the case, particularly at this time. The leadership shown by President Zelensky, President Trump and others in seeking an unconditional ceasefire and a just and lasting peace is crucial. We will continue to work with them on that and we will continue to support Ukraine in its endeavours. She rightly drew attention to the activities of others—North Korea, Iran and others—in supporting Russia’s barbarous actions. We have taken action on many of those things.

The hon. Member for Lewes raised a couple of other points. On enforcement, I hope to have more news imminently and to be able to update the House on those matters. I promised that we would undertake an important review on the enforcement of sanctions across Government. It has been a crucial piece of work, which was rightly raised by many people. I hope we will have more to say on that very soon. I would also point him to the illicit finance and kleptocracy campaign led by the Foreign Secretary and me. We are taking a series of measures, working with Departments across Government, to ensure that London, our country and our wider British family are not used to support kleptocrats and those contrary to our national interests, or indeed Ukraine’s interests in this specific case.

The hon. Gentleman raised the important role of the Council of Europe. I completely agree with him. My ministerial colleague the noble Lord Collins is currently attending a meeting of the Council of Europe’s Committee of Ministers. We have taken important work there—not only on the register of loss and damage, but on crucial issues such as the special tribunal against Russian aggression, as the Foreign Secretary spoke about yesterday.

There were, rightly, a number of questions about the impact that these sanctions are having. The impact is substantial: the Russian Government have been forced to take their first major tax hike in more than 20 years, and, following a loss of $7.6 billion in 2023—its first loss in 25 years—Gazprom, one of Putin’s main sources of incomes, lost $12.9 billion in 2024. Russian oil delivery now takes significantly longer due to sanctions, showing how they and the work on the shadow fleet have disrupted and impeded Russian trade.

[James MacCleary]

The Minister is speaking of the ways in which we are disrupting the Russian regime, but could he say a few words about those who are resisting the regime within Russia? We often speak about pressure being put on Russia to stop Putin’s aggression, but we sometimes forget about those within Russia who are putting themselves at huge risk to resist the actions of the Russian President. Will the Minister mention how we look to support those who bravely stand up and resist the regime within Russia?

[Stephen Doughty]

The hon. Gentleman raises an important point. Of course, our opposition here is to Putin’s regime and what it is doing in Ukraine. We do not have a quarrel with the Russian people or with Russia; our quarrel is with Putin’s regime, what it is doing and what he has brought his country to. It was hugely humbling to meet a number of leading figures in the past few weeks, including Vladimir Kara-Murza, who was brutally imprisoned by Putin’s regime, and Yulia Navalnaya, whose husband, Alexei Navalny, died in prison. We continue to call for the release of Russian political prisoners; their imprisonment is absolutely abhorrent.

These measures are hugely important and are having an impact, and I welcome the unified support across the House for them. I commend these regulations to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Speaker’s Committee for the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority

Resolved,

That, in pursuance of paragraph 2A of Schedule 3 to the Parliamentary Standards Act 2009, Mary Curnock Cook CBE be appointed as a lay member of the Speaker’s Committee for the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority for a period of five years from 2 June 2025 to 31 May 2030.—(Lucy Powell.)

Oral Answers to Questions

Stephen Doughty Excerpts

Tuesday 13th May 2025 Commons Chamber

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

This Government are resolutely committed to development, but we recognise that we must do it differently. We will ensure that the aid budget delivers value for money and has impact globally. Supporting and growing economies will be at the heart of how we spend ODA going forward, and further decisions on the ODA budget, including specific programmes, are subject to the spending review and resource allocation processes.

[Damian Hinds]

These severely constrained budgets call for thinking smarter, not simply smaller, so what work are the Government doing with the World Bank and other international institutions to make sure that UK development spend is fully leveraged so that every penny is as effective as possible?

[Stephen Doughty]

The right hon. Member raises a very important point, and we of course continue to engage closely with our partners at the World Bank and other multilateral development institutions. Multilateral co-operation allows a global scale of investment and delivery that outstrips what countries can achieve alone. We are also looking at other ways, including through the important work of British International Investment and other bodies, so we are going to look across the board and multilaterally to increase our impact.

[Alice Macdonald (Norwich North) (Lab/Co-op)]

The International Development (Gender Equality) Act 2014 says the Government must have due regard to spending aid in a way that contributes to gender equality. Following on from the earlier question, will the Minister confirm that supporting women and girls is a ministerial priority and that we will continue funding vital programmes that support women and girls in many areas?

[Stephen Doughty]

It certainly is, and women and girls will remain at the heart of our programming. I can assure my hon. Friend that equality impact assessments are an essential part of how we make decisions on ODA allocations. Indeed, Minister Chapman will be appearing before the International Development Committee later today, and I think she will be setting out our approach to the equality impact assessment and other processes.

[Sir Andrew Mitchell (Sutton Coldfield) (Con)]

Will the Minister ensure that Britain properly replenishes Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance, a brilliant programme that has benefited so much from British leadership as well as taxpayers’ money? When making his decision on how big that replenishment should be, will he remember that the polling shows that 83% of our constituents think this is a brilliant use of taxpayers’ money and that we should support it?

[Stephen Doughty]

The right hon. Gentleman and I have engaged on these issues for a long time, and he knows that I recognise the importance of Gavi’s work and that of other bodies such as the Global Fund. We are proud to have supported Gavi to vaccinate over 1 billion children, saving 18 million lives and generating $250 billion in economic benefits. We are considering our next investments as part of the spending review process, and we look forward to the June event.

[Joe Powell (Kensington and Bayswater) (Lab)]

The reduction to 0.3% will require painful decisions, but there are innovative financing mechanisms on which Britain could lead—for example, increasing special drawing rights, using the exchange equalisation account, guarantees and debt relief. Can the Minister commit to working with the Treasury to look at all these non-ODA instruments in which Britain could show leadership and fund our development programmes?

[Stephen Doughty]

I absolutely can make that commitment. I will not go into any individual item on my hon. Friend’s list of suggestions, but as I said in an earlier answer, we are looking at all measures by which we can support development and economic growth globally, working with multilateral partners.

[Jenny Riddell-Carpenter (Suffolk Coastal) (Lab)]

12. What steps his Department has taken to commemorate Victory in Europe Day.

--- Later in debate ---

[Martin Vickers (Brigg and Immingham) (Con)]

T2. Will the Minister confirm the state of the current negotiations over the future of Gibraltar, including whether they will be concluded before the EU-UK reset, and will he confirm that the views and interests of the Gibraltarian people will be paramount?

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

The hon. Gentleman can be absolutely assured on that latter point. I spoke to the Chief Minister of Gibraltar just this morning. We have been working closely with him and, indeed, with our EU and Spanish counterparts, and all sides agree on the importance of concluding a treaty as soon as possible. We are working closely with all the parties in that regard, and we will only conclude an agreement that protects sovereignty and UK military autonomy, provides certainty for the people of Gibraltar and secures their future prosperity. We will endeavour to achieve that in due course.

[Steve Yemm (Mansfield) (Lab)]

T6. Over the past few days, The Times has reported that an airport worker and his wife, who works in the NHS, have been raising funds in the UK through an unregistered charity called Zayir UK and sending them to Hezbollah-linked groups in Lebanon. What steps is the Minister taking to ensure that charitable donations in the UK cannot be used to fund terrorism in the middle east?

Syria (Sanctions) (EU Exit) (Amendment) Regulations 2025

Stephen Doughty Excerpts

Tuesday 13th May 2025 General Committees

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

I beg to move,

That the Committee has considered the Syria (Sanctions) (EU Exit) (Amendment) Regulations 2025 (SI, 2025, No. 507).

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Sir Roger, and to see all right hon. and hon. Members. These regulations amend The Syria (Sanctions) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019.

Five months after the fall of the brutal Assad regime, Syria stands at a crossroads. The country and its economy have been decimated by more than 13 years of conflict, and vital infrastructure has been destroyed. Some 90% of Syrians live below the poverty line, so they desperately need support to recover and rebuild their country.

On 24 April, I laid a statutory instrument amending the Syria sanctions regulations to promote and support Syria’s economic recovery. It revokes specific UK sanctions measures on some sectors of the Syrian economy, including transport, trade, energy and finance. We have taken this action to help to open up the Syrian financial system and to support the flow of essential investment in energy infrastructure, above all in the electricity generation sector, which is vital for Syria’s recovery and reconstruction.

This measure is the latest step in a series of gradual actions designed to aid Syria’s recovery and benefit its citizens. On 12 February, HM Treasury’s Office of Financial Sanctions Implementation issued a general licence allowing for payments to be made to support humanitarian delivery. My statement to the House on 13 February indicated the overall direction of travel—as I said, a gradual one—for our Syria sanctions regulations. Following that, on 6 March, we announced the delisting of 24 Syrian entities that were previously used by the Assad regime to fund the oppression of the Syrian people, including the Central Bank of Syria, Syrian Arab Airlines, and several energy companies.

Reflecting the momentous changes that have taken place in Syria since December, this measure brings the 2019 regulations up to date, as well as supporting the Syrian people in rebuilding their country and economy. In the light of the fall of the Assad Government, the regulations now prioritise the promotion of peace, stability and security in Syria, while encouraging respect for democracy and human rights. At the same time, they provide accountability for gross violations of human rights carried out by or on behalf of the Assad regime.

Alongside laying this instrument, we delisted a further 12 Government and media entities that were previously sanctioned due to their links to Assad, and that we judge to no longer have an association with the former regime. Those include the Syrian Ministry of Defence and Ministry of Interior.

I want to be very clear that the Government remain determined to hold Bashar al-Assad and his associates accountable for their atrocious actions against the people of Syria. Many hon. Members present have taken part in debates in this place over many years on that issue and have exposed those horrors. As such, we will ensure that sanctions imposed on 348 individuals and entities linked to the former regime remain in place.

A number of hon. Members have rightly raised deep concerns about the horrific violence that erupted in coastal areas of Syria in early March, on which the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln (Mr Falconer), who has responsibility for the middle east, updated the House in his statement on 10 March. We also saw further violence in southern Syria at the end of April. Rightly, therefore, hon. Members may ask why we are lifting a number of sanctions at this time.

I reassure the House that we keep all our sanctions regimes under close review to ensure that they are used as a responsive tool, targeting those who bear responsibility for repression and human rights abuses. I want to be clear that the revised regulations give the UK scope to deploy future sanctions should that become necessary.

The violence that we have seen has given us a vision of Syria’s future if its new leaders choose the wrong path. They must protect the rights of all Syrians and ensure that all Syrians are included in the political transition. Without meaningful representation of Syria’s diverse communities, there can be no lasting peace, and ultimately no better future for the country. We consistently emphasise that message in all the UK’s engagement with interim President al-Sharaa and Foreign Minister al-Shaibani.

It is important to recognise, however, that there have been some positive developments that suggest Syria could choose the right path towards peace and stability. President al-Sharaa’s actions in the aftermath of the violence in March, announcing the formation of a committee to investigate those found responsible for crimes committed during the violence, is welcome. We also welcome the formation of a new Syrian Government on 29 March and the commitment of President al-Sharaa to hold free and fair elections. We expect those appointed to the new Government to demonstrate a clear commitment to the protection of human rights, allowing unfettered access for humanitarian aid, the safe destruction of chemical weapons stockpiles, and combating terrorism and extremism.

Further, we welcome the provisions made in the constitutional declaration on 13 March on freedom of expression, freedom of belief and women’s rights. It will be vital to ensure that Syria’s diverse communities are consulted as future iterations of the draft constitution are developed. We continue to call on the Syrian Government to prioritise inclusivity and representation in the building of state institutions and in further appointments, including to the legislative committee, and to set out a clear timeline for the next phases of the transition.

We are encouraged, too, by the positive and constructive engagement that Syria has demonstrated with the United Nations Human Rights Council’s new resolution on Syria, which the UK co-tabled and which renewed the mandate of the commission of inquiry for a further 12 months. The UK will continue to maintain our resolute commitment to supporting accountability and human rights in Syria—including freedom of religion or belief—and to advocate for their foundational place at the centre of the transitional process in Syria.

The appearance of Foreign Minister al-Shaibani at the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons’ executive council on 5 March was indeed an historic moment. We welcome the commitments by the Syrian Government to protect chemical weapons sites and not to use chemical weapons under any circumstances. The OPCW’s two visits to Syria are also important steps forward. It reported that the Syrian Government extended all possible support and co-operation, including through access to sites and people. We call on Syria to now move quickly towards declaration.

The agreement made by President al-Sharaa with the Syrian Democratic Forces in north-east Syria on 10 March was also a welcome development. We continue to engage with all parties in support of an inclusive process, as implementation of the agreement progresses.

Beyond our action on sanctions, we also remain committed to helping to meet Syria’s humanitarian needs. We have pledged up to £160 million of UK support in 2025, providing lifesaving assistance to millions of Syrians, inside Syria and across the region, as well as agriculture, livelihoods and education programmes to help Syrians to rebuild their lives.

To conclude, Syria’s transition remains delicately balanced. A step in the wrong direction could lead to instability and ultimately a collapse that would only benefit Iran, Russia and others. It would have wider ramifications for our efforts to counter Daesh—we remain a member of the global coalition—and illegal migration, and would risk destabilising the wider region. Promoting stability and prosperity in Syria through economic recovery is also firmly in the UK’s national interest. It will bolster regional and UK security, in line with our plans. The UK remains committed to the people of Syria and will continue to stand with them in building a more stable, free and prosperous future. I commend the regulations to the Committee.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Doughty]

I thank the shadow Minister, the right hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills, and the Liberal Democrats’ spokesperson, the hon. Member for Lewes, for their comments. They highlighted many of the reasonable concerns of right hon. and hon. Members about the future of Syria and how those concerns relate to our sanctions regimes.

First, on the process, I assure the Committee that absolutely no discourtesy was intended. I gently say to the shadow Minister that, as she will know from her time as a Minister, these things often move at pace. We always try to keep the House updated as soon as possible on any changes that we need to make.

The shadow Minister asked about co-ordination with the United States, the European Union and other partners. I assure her that the Minister with responsibility for the middle east and I, and others, have regular conversations with partners across the region, as well as with those in the European Union, the United States and elsewhere, to understand our approaches and assessments of this rapidly moving set of circumstances. We have been quite honest that there are a number of unknowns, but we regularly discuss those and always seek to co-ordinate.

The shadow Minister will know, but it may benefit other Committee members to say, that our sanctions regimes are all different in their scope, their legal aspects and how they operate. There is not always a direct alignment between different measures and different approaches. We also have different nexuses and points of reference with relation to the entities and individuals who were previously sanctioned.

The shadow Minister and other Committee members will understand that there is a crucial balance to be achieved. As I said at the beginning, this is a gradual process. It is about balancing support for the people, for Syria’s economic recovery and for a hopeful and positive future for the people, of which we have seen some positive signs, against ensuring the rightful caution and assessment of the circumstances on the ground and of the performance and actions, not just the words, of the new regime.

The shadow Minister will be reassured that we are regularly keeping these matters under review. Obviously—I always say this—we do not comment on future designations or the future actions that we might take, but she can rest assured that this measure and our overall regimes allow the potential, should we seek to, to impose new measures in future given the circumstances on the ground. It is worth emphasising that this measure effectively relates to defunct regulations that were no longer appropriate, because they related to the Assad regime.

The shadow Minister asked about discussions with the Syrian Government. The United Kingdom engages privately and regularly with the Syrian Government at every level, including through our Syria envoy, to support them in delivering a more stable, free and prosperous future for the Syrian people. The UK National Security Adviser spoke to President Ahmed al-Sharaa and Foreign Minister al-Shaibani on 10 April. He made clear the importance of an inclusive political transition, the need to protect all civilians, and the hope that we would work together to tackle shared concerns, including countering Daesh.

The Minister with responsibility for the middle east met Syria’s Foreign Minister al-Shaibani in Brussels on 17 March, and they discussed the importance of an inclusive political transition, the need to protect all civilians, and the security situation in northern Syria. The Foreign Secretary also met Syria’s Foreign Minister al-Shaibani at the Munich security conference, and FCDO staff, including the UK special representative for Syria, have undertaken visits to Damascus. I hope the Committee is assured that we are engaging at every level, and making clear our expectations and hopes. We will work with others to support the transition and to take the necessary steps.

On conditions, I have clearly set out our expectations. Those are then kept closely under review, in the same way that we approach all matters in relation to Syria—not just sanctions, but our support and engagement with the regime.

The shadow Minister asked about the whereabouts of previously sanctioned individuals. I will not go into that now, but I will write to her with some assurances about the measures we are taking to monitor the situation. Those hundreds of individuals rightly remain sanctioned, but it is important for the Committee to be aware that we want to hold them accountable, and to stop those who were involved in atrocities under the Assad regime from being able to prosper and thrive as a result of their actions. She also asked about the number of militant groups; I will write to her with a more detailed assessment of the situation and perhaps we can offer her some briefing as well.

The shadow Minister referred specifically to growth and economic potential. Obviously, this is a fragile and fast-moving situation, and our advice to businesses is clear that they must undertake their own legal and risk assessments of the situation. There are a range of not only UK but international measures in relation to activity in Syria. It is very important that businesses get the best advice on that before engaging in any activities. Although this measure does not specifically relate to UK companies, it should help more broadly to achieve a prosperous, peaceful and stable future for Syria.

The shadow Minister asked about measures to secure evidence, routes to justice and ways forward. I want to be clear with the Committee that accountability and the protection of human rights are critical parts of a sustainable transition. We continue to advocate for that and, as I have said, we have raised it on a number of occasions. We have committed £1.15 million to accountability and documentation-related programming, and following the collapse of the Assad regime, we announced £240,000 in funding to help to secure and preserve vital evidence.

We also continue to work with international partners and civil society to support mechanisms such as the UN’s International, Impartial and Independent Mechanism, the Independent Institution on Missing Persons, and the commission of inquiry, to ensure that they have the resources to conduct their operations and to address impunity and the suffering of the Syrian people. We directly support Syrians documenting and gathering evidence to hold the former Assad regime to account for sexual and gender-based violence, which has resulted in the first conviction for sexual crimes. That is a core part of our work with the Syrian Government and is crucially important.

I can say, as someone who highlighted many of these concerns in the House alongside our former and deeply missed colleague Jo Cox and others, that the shadow Minister should be assured of my commitment, and that of the ministerial team, to ensuring that we have accountability that does justice for victims and survivors and that fundamentally underpins a peaceful future for civilians. That will be crucial.

The shadow Minister asked about chemical weapons. We are clear that any use of chemical weapons, by anyone and under any circumstance, is unacceptable. The brutal history of chemical weapons use in Syria must never be repeated. There is now an opportunity to rid Syria of chemical weapons and we have been very clear that Syria must meet its obligations under the chemical weapons convention and United Nations Security Council resolution 2118.

We are working closely with the new regime and other partners. We welcome commitments that they are going to protect the chemical weapons sites and not use such weapons under any circumstances. As I mentioned, that appearance with the OPCW, the visits by the OPCW in March, and a range of other measures are progressing that crucial work. We have provided nearly a million—£837,000—to the OPCW Syria mission since the fall of Assad to support its immediate work, which will absolutely continue.

More broadly, I should make the point that we have not given any new humanitarian funds to the new Syrian Government. Our humanitarian assistance is provided via NGOs and UN organisations operating in Syria to meet the needs of the most vulnerable across the country. As with all of our work, to reassure both spokespeople, we have extensive controls in place to ensure that our aid reaches those who need it and is not falling into the hands of those it should not.

More widely, I hope that I have clearly set out how we are engaging at every level, how we are working with partners, and how we are focused on crucial issues related to accountability, immediate humanitarian needs, economic recovery and setting out clear positions for the new regime that we hope it will come true on. As I said, there are positive signs and important steps forward being taken.

I assure the Committee and the shadow Minister that this situation remains high focus for the UK Government. Ministers are working across the piece on it and we will keep the House updated as matters develop. It is a finely balanced situation. We hope that it will move in the right direction, but of course we always retain the right to take other action should that not be the case. We will continue to make our expectations clear. With that, I commend these regulations to the Committee.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That the Committee has considered the Syria (Sanctions) (EU Exit) (Amendment) Regulations 2025 (SI, 2025, No. 507 ).

Syria Sanctions

Stephen Doughty Excerpts

Wednesday 30th April 2025 Written Statements

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

Today I am updating the House on the steps to update and adapt the UK’s Syria sanctions regime following the fall of Assad’s dictatorship in December last year and given the ongoing political transition.

On 12 February the UK issued a humanitarian general licence to provide essential sanctions relief to Syria, a country facing staggering humanitarian needs and a broken economy, and which is in the first stages of recovery after almost 14 years of conflict.

My statement to the House on 13 February indicated the direction of travel for our Syria sanctions regulations. On 6 March we announced the de-listing of 24 Syrian entities that were previously used by the Assad regime to fund the oppression of the Syrian people, including the Central Bank of Syria, Syrian Arab Airlines and a number of energy companies.

On 24 April we took further steps towards helping the Syrian people rebuild their country and economy. We have amended our Syria sanctions regulations to bring them up to date and have revoked specific sanctions measures on energy, transport (aircraft), financial transactions and trade. We have also de-listed a further 12 governmental and media entities given that they are no longer associated with the Assad regime and their designations were defunct. Our revised Syria sanctions regulations, however, give the UK scope to deploy future sanctions in the Syria context, should that become necessary.

In taking these steps, our intention is to help open up the Syrian financial system and support the flow of essential investment in energy infrastructure, above all in the electricity generation sector, essential for Syria’s reconstruction. This is vital for ensuring stability in Syria and the wider region—recognising that wider international steps will be necessary to support these objectives.

The Government remain determined to hold Bashar al-Assad and his associates accountable for their atrocious actions against the people of Syria. As such, we will ensure that asset freezes and travel bans imposed on members of the former regime remain in force. We also continue to keep the ongoing developments in Syria under close review.

As the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln (Mr Falconer), said to the House in his statement on 10 March:

“Stability in Syria is firmly in our interests.”—[Official Report, 10 March 2025; Vol. 763, c. 664.]

We will continue to engage with the Syrian Government at all levels to support an inclusive political transition, and to encourage commitment to the protection of human rights, unfettered access for humanitarian aid, safe destruction of chemical weapons stockpiles, and combating terrorism and extremism. The UK remains committed to the people of Syria and will continue to stand with them in building a more stable, free and prosperous future.

[HCWS612]

Safety of Humanitarian Workers: Conflict Zones

Stephen Doughty Excerpts

Wednesday 30th April 2025 Westminster Hall

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

It is a genuine pleasure to sit under your chairpersonship today, Ms Lewell, and I thank the hon. Member for Cheadle (Mr Morrison) for securing this debate and highlighting the grave threats facing aid and humanitarian workers around the world. I say that with genuine sincerity, having spent many years working for humanitarian non-governmental organisations and the former Department for International Development, and as a former member of the International Development Committee, along with a number of hon. Members in this room. I have witnessed the courageous work of humanitarian workers, as well as that of staff from the FCDO—formerly the FCO—and DFID, in extremely challenging situations around the world. They have always operated in dangerous environments, but the threats they face today, as has been highlighted so powerfully, are escalating to intolerable levels, with many paying the ultimate price. Their protection is essential for agencies to operate, for our obligations under international law, and for our shared humanity. I welcome the International Development Committee’s ongoing inquiry on this topic. Its focus on the safety and protection of those courageous individuals is timely and vital. We will engage with the Committee fully on that and consider its findings.

As I said, these issues are deeply personal to me. Along with the late and missed colleague of ours, Jo Cox, I have worked with many people, and I still have friends who are working in some of these environments and agencies, including in some of the circumstances that have been described. This is deeply personal for me. As colleagues will understand I obviously will not go into the details, but having worked with Oxfam, World Vision and many other organisations, I have seen this for myself.

It is absolutely right that Members highlighted that last year was the deadliest year for humanitarian personnel, with the situation in Gaza providing the most dangerous context. More than 400 air workers have been killed there since October 2023, including three British citizens serving with World Central Kitchen. In March, attacks on a UN facility and a Palestinian Red Crescent Society convoy showed that Israel must do much more to prevent further tragedies, and I will come on to some of the specific comments on that in due course. Reports from Sudan highlight the tragic deaths of aid workers in the Zamzam camp. As has been highlighted, those losses are part of a global trend driven by the scale, complexity and urbanisation of armed conflicts, but behind every incident is a family shattered, a team destabilised, and often a community and extremely vulnerable individuals left without assistance.

Fatalities are, of course, only part of the tragic picture. Aid workers face rising levels of injury, abduction and detention, with an immense psychological toll. They sometimes question whether their humanitarian logos and emblems help to distinguish them from parties to conflict, or increase their risks. Those workers must have basic assurances of protection, and they must not be targeted. The UK is committed to promoting compliance with international law, including international humanitarian law, and supporting mechanisms that protect those working in the world’s most dangerous environments.

The hon. Member for Cheadle gave a powerful testimony as context for the debate and the wider risks, and he highlighted many of the contexts. I assure him that those workers are absolutely not forgotten. Importantly, he highlighted the volunteers, often locals, who are involved in these contexts, and raised a number of important questions. He specifically asked about mental health, and I assure him that the FCDO has funded additional mental health support for partners where there is an identified gap in available service provision.

The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), as always, spoke powerfully and passionately, and I commend, as he did, the work of church groups in his constituency, and indeed all faith groups. We know that many faith groups in our constituencies, including my constituency of Cardiff South and Penarth, have partnerships with NGOs, and faith groups and others are crucial in responding in these circumstances. They are often the first responders and the first on the ground. The hon. Gentleman specifically asked me about Afghanistan. He will know that humanitarian operations in Afghanistan face serious access challenges, particularly for women, due to the Taliban ban on female aid workers. Despite those challenges, we have supported partners to negotiate local and case-by-case exemptions to continue the work and respond to the needs of women and girls.

The hon. Member for West Dorset (Edward Morello) spoke about the convictions and values that drive humanitarian aid workers. I have seen that myself repeatedly, and we hugely value their personal duty and service. He asked some specific questions about the humanitarian medal. That has been awarded to those who responded to the Moroccan earthquake, the Libyan floods and the Gaza crisis, and we are still working through the consideration of other humanitarian emergencies. I appreciate his raising the point about eligibility. I will endeavour to come back to him on that, and I or one of my ministerial colleagues will write back to him in due course.

The hon. Member for Dewsbury and Batley (Iqbal Mohamed) raised the important issue of kidnappings and other incidents. The issue is not just those who die in attacks but those who are kidnapped and detained, and the psychological, and often physical, toll that that takes on them. He rightly highlighted a number of contexts, from Gaza to Lebanon. I do not accept his comparison with Ukraine, not least because I was in Ukraine a few weeks ago, under bombardment, and saw what was happening to civilians there. The actions of my ministerial colleagues in relation to Gaza, Ukraine, Sudan and many other crises are substantial and sincere.

I certainly will not apologise for the difficult decisions we have had to take about ODA to keep the people of this country safe from the many threats that we face, and I will come on to that point in due course. The hon. Member for Dewsbury and Batley asked me specifically about Lebanon, and we use our diplomatic levers to press all parties to honour and respect the humanitarian notification system, which is a deconfliction mechanism to ensure that the location of humanitarian facilities and movements is entitled to protection under international humanitarian law. We are working to make sure that humanitarians are protected in that conflict and many others.

There were many other important contributions, including that made by the hon. Member for Mid Dunbartonshire (Susan Murray). I will highlight a few points in response to some of those comments. It is important to note that we have seen not only state-on-state violence and other conflicts but non-state armed groups growing in number. That has increased the risk and complexity of many humanitarian environments, including across the Sahel. In 2023, according to the Aid Worker Security Database, non-state groups remained the most frequent perpetrators of incidents globally, but the proportion of incidents involving state actors increased. There are a whole series of factors at play here. We watch all of them closely and try to respond in the best way that we can.

On Gaza specifically, the Foreign Secretary spoke to the UN emergency relief co-ordinator, Tom Fletcher, on 14 March. The Minister for the middle east, my hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln (Mr Falconer), spoke with him on 17 March. The Foreign Secretary spoke directly to Israeli Foreign Minister Sa’ar on 15 April and directly raised concerns about the humanitarian situation in Gaza and the urgent need to restore the flow of aid. We are obviously appalled by recent attacks on aid workers, including that on the UNOPS guesthouse on 19 March, and the killing of rescue workers and paramedics, including at least eight Palestine Red Crescent medics, on 23 March. Our thoughts are very much with the victims and their families.

[Iqbal Mohamed]

Will the hon. Member give way?

[Stephen Doughty]

I am going to try to respond to all the comments; I will then, perhaps, take some interventions.

We expect those responsible for the killing to be held to account, and we expect that to be done transparently. The Foreign Secretary has pressed Foreign Minister Sa’ar to conclude the Military Advocate General’s consideration of the World Central Kitchen incident, including determining whether criminal proceedings should be initiated. Indeed, the Foreign Secretary and my hon. Friend the Minister for the middle east have met the families of those killed in the attacks and assured them that the Government will continue to support their calls for justice. On 28 March, the UK and France called an urgent UN Security Council meeting to discuss the risks facing humanitarian aid workers in Gaza. That work is substantial and it is going on at many levels. We have also called for the Palestine Red Crescent Society incident to be investigated fully at the Security Council on 5 April. On 21 March, an E3 Foreign Ministers’ statement made clear that the UN and its premises should be protected, and should never be a target.

Hon. Members asked about arms exports. We have been clear; Members will have heard the Foreign Secretary and the Minister for the middle east speak about this on many occasions. We suspended certain licences to export to Israel for use in military operations in Gaza following a review that concluded that there is a clear risk that items might be used to commit or facilitate serious violations of international humanitarian law in Gaza. On the wider situation, over the past few days the Foreign Secretary and the Minister for the middle east met Prime Minister Mustafa and discussed the humanitarian situation in the west bank and in Gaza. We announced a £101 million package of support for the Occupied Palestinian Territories, and that will be dedicated to humanitarian relief, support for Palestinian economic development and strengthening Palestinian authority, governance and reform.

I was asked, on many occasions, about the support that we give specifically for the protection of aid workers. That includes support to the Aid Worker Security Database, core funding to UNOCHA and the International NGO Safety Organisation, and funding at the country level in many contexts. For example, in Ukraine we support the Humanitarian Action through Volunteers, Enablers and Networks consortium to provide a duty of care package. We also provide funding to the ICRC and UN-managed country-based pooled funds, and we are keeping all our ODA priorities under review. I can assure hon. Members that humanitarian response remains absolutely crucial to what we are doing, particularly in the contexts that have been mentioned most today: Ukraine, Gaza and Sudan. There are many other contexts but those three in particular have been highlighted by the Prime Minister.

The shadow Minister asked about disinformation. We are absolutely aware of that challenge. We worked at the UN on resolution 2730, which condemns disinformation targeting aid workers, and we are working on a number of programmes in that regard. She asked about the aid workers in Ukraine and I have mentioned the HAVEN programme. We are also providing personal protective equipment, individual first aid kits and so on through that scheme. That is crucial.

We constantly take work through the UN. We called for a series of measures in the circumstances that I identified and we also co-chaired a UN event demanding the release of aid workers detained by the Houthis in Yemen. We support a new political declaration by Australia to strengthen global commitments to protect aid workers, which will complement UN Security Council resolution 2730. We respond to direct incidents at the highest levels—I have identified some of those in relation to Sudan—and, of course, we condemned the reported attacks on aid workers and pressed for investigations. We recently hosted the London Sudan conference alongside the African Union, the EU, Germany and France to galvanise co-ordinated action. We must use our momentum to keep applying pressure to all the parties there to comply with their obligations.

We are also working very closely with organisations working to support female aid workers who face particular issues with restrictions, threats and sexual violence. The UK invests in safeguarding and directly supports women’s rights organisations to help mitigate those risks. My ministerial colleagues and I try to take account of all of the specific and granular risks that workers face, but it is about more than just those specific circumstances. It is about a wider commitment by the United Kingdom to the protection of aid workers and to humanitarian principles. I can assure Members that we will continue to uphold those principles and stand up for them in the work that we do.

I thank hon. Members for their contributions today, which have been passionate and sincere. I have heard what has been said and I will certainly communicate that to ministerial colleagues. I once again thank the hon. Member for Cheadle for sponsoring the debate in the first place.

Ukraine War: London Talks

Stephen Doughty Excerpts

Thursday 24th April 2025 Commons Chamber

[Priti Patel (Witham) (Con)]

(Urgent Question): To ask the Foreign Secretary if he will make a statement on the talks held yesterday in London on the war in Ukraine.

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

I thank the right hon. Lady for her question and for the Opposition’s continued support for the united position that we take in our iron-clad support for Ukraine. We remain fully committed to working with Ukraine and our international partners to secure a just and lasting peace.

Our support for Ukraine is iron-clad. Representatives of the United Kingdom, France, Germany and the United States convened in London yesterday, with Ukraine, for another round of intensive talks, following up on the meeting in Paris last week. All parties reiterated their strong support for President Trump’s commitment to stopping the killing and achieving a just and lasting peace. The talks were productive and successful, and significant progress was made on reaching a common position on next steps. All agreed to continue their close co-ordination and look forward to further talks soon. There was an E3 statement on this just last night. The Foreign Secretary had bilateral discussions with Foreign Minister Sybiha, and he remains in close contact with his ministerial counterparts. To give further details of the discussions would only benefit Putin, as I hope the right hon. Lady understands.

We condemn Russia’s brutal missile and drone attacks on civilians, including overnight. Our thoughts are with the victims and their loved ones at this tragic time. They were absolutely horrific scenes, and they came on the back of shocking scenes not only in Kyiv but in Kryvyi Rih, Sumy, Marhanets and many other locations across Ukraine in recent days. I remind the House that, while Ukraine has been in peace talks, Russia has continued these severe attacks, including last night. That is a stark reminder of the continued bloodshed and aggression perpetrated by Putin. I witnessed myself the terrible situation in Kyiv when I visited just weeks ago; there were attacks on Bucha of all places just hours before I arrived. Indeed, this is about not just the killings but the continued shocking abductions of children and attempts to wipe out Ukrainian culture. Putin’s demands remain undiminished. We are very clear about that.

President Zelensky has shown his commitment to peace. President Putin must now agree to a full and immediate ceasefire without conditions, as Ukraine has done. We will not stop in our efforts to work with all parties to that end.

[Priti Patel]

For all the talks taking place, it is concerning that a clear and unified front in support of Ukraine, to support a peace on its terms, has yet to emerge. The Minister mentioned the E3 statement on yesterday’s talks, but it consisted of three sentences stating that the talks were productive and successful, and that significant progress was made in reaching a common position on the next steps. Will he tell us exactly what was productive and successful about the talks, what those next steps are, and whether Ukraine is in agreement? Were security guarantees for Ukraine discussed, and was progress made on agreeing what they will be? Was the UK’s long-standing position of supporting Ukraine’s accession to NATO discussed?

Following the abhorrent missile strike in Kyiv last night, which killed more innocent civilians, does the Minister believe that Putin is committed to a just and fair end to this conflict? Can the Minister confirm whether the status of Crimea and other Ukrainian territories invaded and occupied unlawfully by Russia was discussed and what the UK Government’s position is? The UK was the strongest advocate for Ukraine regaining all the territory taken by force by Putin and for Putin to lose this war. Is that still the case?

There is much debate about the initiatives to end the war by negotiations, but we cannot forget that this war was started by Putin—a murderous, vile autocrat who is being propped up by an axis of authoritarian states trying to extinguish democracy on our continent, and by those who are opposed to our values, including China, North Korea and Iran. We need the Government to leverage British influence in every way possible for Ukraine. Our Ukrainian friends are on the frontline, battling an attempt to reshape the whole international order by force.

I condemn the sanctioning of 15 Members yesterday by Russia. To those colleagues, I say this: it shows that you are on the right side of history and that we must always stand up to tyranny. UK sanctions on Russia must stay in place. What is the Government’s position on applying secondary sanctions, and when will the billions of pounds of proceeds from the sale of Chelsea FC be made available for Ukraine?

Can the Minister explain why the Government’s £2.26 billion loan to Ukraine, backed by the profits of sanctioned assets, is being paid over three years rather than in full now? Finally, what more can the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office do to mobilise British technology, which could be cheaply and quickly applied to adapt Ukraine’s military efforts?

[Stephen Doughty]

I thank the right hon. Lady for her questions and for her continued support and unity on these issues. It is crucial that we send a signal not only to our friends in Ukraine but to Putin—that this House will not be divided on these issues. We are united in our support for Ukraine, and I can reassure her of our absolute commitment to Ukraine. Indeed, there has been extensive ministerial contact over recent weeks. I met Minister Sybiha in Turkey a week or so ago, and the Foreign Secretary was with him yesterday. Contact remains at every level.

The right hon. Lady asked a number of specific questions. I am afraid that I cannot go into the detail of yesterday’s discussions, for reasons that she will understand. I know she has a job to do in holding us to account on that, but it is really important that we allow those technical talks to go on at that level between the principals, and she will understand why that is necessary.

I agree completely with the right hon. Lady’s point about the sanctions against Members of this House, which I utterly condemn. This is par for the course when it comes to Putin and his regime. She asked what we are doing on sanctions. Our commitment to sanctions remains undiminished. We will maintain the pressure at every level. In fact, we are ramping up the pressure, and today we have announced new sanctions, including on the shocking repurposing of games console controllers to kill Ukrainians by Russia. We are taking robust action at every step we can, not only directly, to choke off the Russian war machine, but in relation to second and third-country circumvention of those sanctions. She can be assured that I have spent a lot of time on this issue in recent weeks.

The right hon. Lady asks about the situation with Chelsea FC, and I refer her to my previous comments on that. We are working at pace to meet the agreements that were made on that. She points out the importance of the extraordinary revenue accelerator loan. The first tranche of that has been disbursed. In fact, I discussed this with the deputy Finance Minister of Ukraine just a few weeks ago, to ensure that they had access to those resources. They do have access, and I am happy to write to her separately about the details of the further tranches that will be paid.

There is absolutely no softening of our commitment to the coalition of the willing. Indeed, the Foreign Secretary met French, US, German and Ukrainian counterparts last week, underlining our shared commitments, and we are leading a coalition of willing nations to defend Ukraine’s security. We will not get into the operational details, for obvious reasons, as the Defence Secretary made clear earlier this week.

The right hon. Lady asks about Crimea. The UK’s position regarding Ukrainian sovereignty is well known and has not changed: we do not recognise Russian sovereignty over any territory illegally seized from Ukraine, including Crimea. When, how and on what terms this war comes to an end can be decided only by negotiations with Ukraine at the heart of them.

[Phil Brickell (Bolton West) (Lab)]

As one of the individuals who was sanctioned yesterday by the Kremlin, I ask the Minister whether he agrees that if Putin is serious about securing any sort of lasting peace in Ukraine, he should stop the performative sanctioning of democratically elected Members of this House and focus on stopping the murderous, barbaric killing of civilians in Ukraine and the invasion of that nation, which we stand with in full support.

[Stephen Doughty]

Again, I utterly condemn the sanctioning of Members of this House, including my hon. Friend. I am on that list too, as are many other Members, and it is completely unacceptable; we are clear on that. My hon. Friend rightly points out examples of Russia’s actions in recent days—the horrific attacks, the deaths, the killing, the continued aggression—and of course Russia is the aggressor in this conflict.

[Mr Speaker]

I call Liberal Democrat spokesperson James MacCleary.

[James MacCleary (Lewes) (LD)]

Overnight, Russia launched 11 ballistic missiles and nearly 200 cruise missiles and drones at civilian targets in Kyiv. Yesterday’s talks in London should have been an opportunity to strengthen the western coalition’s support for Ukraine in the face of Putin’s barbarism. Instead, they were derailed by President Trump, who, in a petulant response to President Zelensky’s refusal to countenance the recognition of Crimea as Russian, withdrew his Secretary of State and special adviser from the meeting. President Trump demonstrated that he is not interested in securing a just peace that can deter future Russian aggression and protect Ukraine’s right to self-determination. Instead, he is intent on securing a carve-up of Ukraine with Putin, as long as it is agreed before the 100th day of his presidency. Will the Minister make clear to his US counterpart that the apparent ultimatum shared with President Zelensky last week, which would deliver to Putin most of the goals of his illegal invasion, is utterly wrong and would only embolden future Russian aggression? I too yesterday found myself on a list of MPs from across the House who are being sanctioned by the Kremlin. Will the Government outline how they plan to support Members who are being targeted for speaking out?

[Stephen Doughty]

While I welcome the hon. Gentleman’s party’s continued support for a united front on Ukraine, I do not recognise his characterisation of the talks yesterday, which were productive and constructive, and involved the United States. The Foreign Secretary also spoke to Secretary of State Rubio just the night before, and we are in regular contact with our US counterparts. Secretary of State Rubio welcomed the fact that we were hosting special envoy Kellogg alongside others. Of course, the Prime Minister has been in contact with President Trump in recent days, and the Foreign Secretary has been in contact with his counterpart.

We share the President’s desire to bring this barbaric war to an end. Of course Russia could do that tomorrow by withdrawing its forces and ending its illegal invasion. We are working with all our allies, including the United States, on a plan to stop the fighting. We obviously need agreement among all of us on that—European allies, the United States and others—and we are working closely with President Trump on that, but we are also clear that Ukraine’s voice must be at the heart of any talks. We warmly welcome the agreements and discussions between the United States and Ukraine, but ultimately the ball is in President Putin’s court. He continues instead to fire missiles and cause the destruction and killing that the hon. Gentleman rightly highlighted. It is utterly horrific. The responsibility lies with one person, and that is Vladimir Putin.

[Matt Rodda (Reading Central) (Lab)]

I associate myself with the Minister’s comments about the appalling attacks on Ukraine last night, and I thank him for his statement today. Will he update the House on the support the Government are offering to Ukrainian communities across the UK at this very difficult time, such as the large Ukrainian community in Reading?

[Stephen Doughty]

I thank my hon. Friend for his support, and he rightly references Ukrainian communities across the United Kingdom. I have met the Ukrainian community in my constituency, and just this week I met Ukrainian community members to discuss a range of issues, including the horrific abduction of children, which Russia has continued to perpetrate, one of the most shocking and heinous aspects of this conflict. I am really proud of what British communities have done across the country to support Ukrainians, and the strong ties that have been built. It is fantastic that we have signed a 100-year partnership, so that for 100 years into the future, we have that relationship and give that iron-clad support on every level—economically, diplomatically, militarily, and of course through crucial people-to-people links.

[Sir James Cleverly (Braintree) (Con)]

Our international relationships the world over are dependent on partner countries’ confidence that we will stick by our word, and that our allies will do likewise. Will the Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy), convey that message to the United States of America? The world—friends and foes alike—is looking at our willingness to stick by the commitments that we have made to Ukraine. If we renege on those commitments, every single relationship around the world will be undermined.

[Stephen Doughty]

Well, I am not my right hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy)—I represent Cardiff South and Penarth—but I thank the former Foreign Secretary for his comments, his continued support, and his engagement with me on these important issues when I was in opposition. The Government and I have been absolutely clear: our support is iron-clad, not only now, but for 100 years into the future. I was able to convey our support and our unity on this issue to a bipartisan delegation from the US House Foreign Affairs Committee yesterday. It was an excellent and productive discussion. There is strong unity on these issues. We need to continue to work together, across Europe and in our transatlantic and global alliances, to deter and defend against the threat from Russia, as well as other threats that we face together.

[Johanna Baxter (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (Lab)]

I was also one of the Members on the list of people sanctioned by the Kremlin yesterday. I want to make it clear in this House that if Vladimir Putin thinks that sanctioning me will silence me, he is very, very wrong. It is no coincidence that the sanction came on the day when I launched a report that I co-authored with UK Friends of Ukraine on the issue of the stolen children. The report outlines in detail the systemic capture, re-education and conscription of Ukrainian children by Russia. Will my hon. Friend outline whether the issue of the stolen children was discussed yesterday? Does he support the campaign to return the stolen children? Will he join me in calling for a UK national day of action to recognise the issue of the stolen children of Ukraine on 17 July, the Day of International Criminal Justice?

[Stephen Doughty]

I thank my hon. Friend for her powerful points, and I condemn the sanction against her. She is right to raise the issue of the stolen children. I discussed the matter a short while ago with the Ukrainian Deputy Foreign Minister and representatives of the different campaigns on the issue. This is a personal priority for the Foreign Secretary and me. It is one of the most heinous and horrific aspects of the conflict, not only for those children and their families, but because it speaks to a wider attempt by Putin to subjugate the people, identity, culture, language and future of Ukraine. That should be clear for all to see. One of the most powerful reminders of that is a picture that I have in my office painted by one of the children, who was thankfully returned, but sadly there are still far too many children who have been taken by Russia. I look forward to working with my hon. Friend on this important issue, and I am very happy to discuss the event that she suggested.

[Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

If the Government could persuade the Nobel peace prize committee to give the award to Donald Trump on condition that he stops siding with the aggressor against the victim, does the Minister think that American policy might revert to one of NATO deterrence, which prevented world war three for half a century after the end of world war two?

[Stephen Doughty]

The right hon. Gentleman, who I know well, will know that that is a matter for the Nobel committee, and not for me. I do not recognise his characterisation. We are working closely with the United States, Ukraine and all of our European partners to secure a just and lasting peace for Ukraine. We are very clear about who is on the side of peace—us—and who is on the side of war: Vladimir Putin.

[Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)]

Members across this House who have been sanctioned by Putin and his flunkies should wear that as a badge of honour. It indicates just how Putin and his flunkies feel about the prospect of Russian assets being seized. Will the Minister update the House on the progress made in moving from freezing to seizing Russian assets to strengthen the hand of our brave Ukrainian allies?

[Stephen Doughty]

I condemn the sanction against the hon. Lady, and against other colleagues in the House. We have been very clear that Russia must pay for the damage it is causing in Ukraine and the destruction that it has wrought on the Ukrainian people and industries. I saw some terrible examples of that when I visited just a few weeks ago. I have spoken about the importance of the extraordinary revenue acceleration scheme and the moneys that are now available to Ukraine. The Government continue to work closely with allies on the issue that the hon. Lady references. I had extensive discussions with my G7 counterparts and others about considering all possible lawful avenues for making Russia pay for the damage it is causing, and we will update the House in due course.

[Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)]

I thank the Minister for his statement. I also thank the right hon. Member for Witham (Priti Patel) for her statement, because it is important that this House speaks with one voice on this really important issue. On Tuesday, I asked a question to the Secretary of State for Defence about the changing nature of warfare. The Minister raised the terrible image of controllers for computer game systems being used as weapons. Has he had conversations with NATO partners and allies about the changing nature of warfare, and will that be fed into the strategic defence review?

[Stephen Doughty]

We certainly have had those conversations, and we have them regularly. I thank my hon. Friend for raising that point. The Minister for the Armed Forces is here with me; we regularly discuss these issues. I am sure all that will be considered as part of the strategic defence review. My hon. Friend rightly points out the efforts we are making to deny Russia any of the nefarious means it uses to prosecute its horrendous war in Ukraine. We have taken very specific action on some of those matters today, and we will continue to consider further measures.

[Dan Carden (Liverpool Walton) (Lab)]

I welcome the words of the Minister, and the UK Government’s steadfast support for Ukraine, and for further promoting European security. Will he say a little more about how he is working across Government Departments to support the efforts of civil society and businesses in the UK to ensure that, at every level, we offer the greatest support possible to Ukrainians?

[Stephen Doughty]

I point my hon. Friend to the important 100-year partnership that we signed. Engagement at every level between civil society and people in every community is crucial. I know that there are very important twinning arrangements between cities and communities across the UK, and we look forward to strengthening those, and working with those communities. I met Ukrainian civil society organisations in Kyiv just a few weeks ago, and I regularly meet organisations here in the UK. If all of us across this House can create more links, that will give true strength for the future to the foundation on which that partnership is built.

[Sir Roger Gale (Herne Bay and Sandwich) (Con)]

The Minister’s confirmation that the coalition of the willing will not permit the concession of any Ukrainian sovereign territory to Russia is most welcome, but I am not sure that I understand how that squares with Mr Trump’s current negotiating position, which seems to be based entirely on that. Some 20,000 Ukrainian children have been stolen by the neo-Soviet Union and sovietised. That is a war crime. Did the meeting yesterday make it absolutely plain that no recognition of any concession based on war crimes will be admitted at any time?

[Stephen Doughty]

The right hon. Gentleman asks important questions. He has heard what I had to say about the abducted children, and I completely share his passion, and his horror at what has happened. I will not go into the details of what was discussed yesterday, but as I said, I spoke about this issue very recently with our Ukrainian counterparts, and I know that the Foreign Secretary takes a very keen interest in it. The right hon. Gentleman also asked about territory. I will repeat what I said: we do not recognise Russian sovereignty over any territory illegally seized from Ukraine, including Crimea.

[Dr Jeevun Sandher (Loughborough) (Lab)]

I was also one of the Members sanctioned by Putin yesterday for calling for this House to do everything we can to stop him. The lesson of a century ago is that dictators like Putin cannot and will not stop unless we stop them, and the only way to stop him is through strength—through strong armed forces, a strong NATO and a strong nation. How will we invest in our strength to stop Putin and keep ourselves safe?

[Stephen Doughty]

Again, I condemn the sanction against my hon. Friend. He asks what we are doing to keep our citizens and all our allies safe, and to keep our shared security in place. Again, I am pleased to be joined by the Minister for the Armed Forces. This Government have stepped up resources for defence and security and UK support to Ukraine. We are increasing defence spending to 2.5% of GDP by 2027, and have an ambition to reach 3%, and the UK is committed to providing Ukraine with £3 billion in military assistance this year and every year for as long as it takes. I mentioned the ERA loan, and we also have export finance support, £1.6 billion of which is going on supplying Ukraine with more than 5,000 air defence missiles. That is utterly crucial and makes a tangible difference, not least in the face of the barbaric attacks that we saw overnight.

[Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)]

I welcome fresh members to the list of those of us who have been sanctioned. Why is President Trump treating Ukraine as the aggressor? Will the Minister remind US negotiators that—together with the United Kingdom—the USA signed the Budapest memorandum, assuring Ukraine of its territorial integrity and independence, when that country sacrificed unilaterally its position as the world’s third largest nuclear-armed power?

[Stephen Doughty]

I welcome the right hon. Gentleman’s support on Ukraine, but again, I do not share his characterisation of the United States’ position. We share President Trump’s desire to bring this barbaric war to an end, and we are working closely with the US and other international partners to secure a just and lasting peace. As I have said, it is very clear to us that President Zelensky and Ukraine are demonstrating and have demonstrated a clear commitment to peace, including through their participation yesterday alongside the US and our European partners. We know who the real obstacle to peace is: Vladimir Putin.

[Mr Connor Rand (Altrincham and Sale West) (Lab)]

Does the Minister agree that, as other hon. Members have alluded to, last night’s brutal attack on Kyiv is a timely reminder to Governments and leaders around the world that Russia is and always has been the aggressor in this conflict? Does he agree that that perspective must be central to any talks, as we stand with Ukraine for as long as it takes?

[Stephen Doughty]

As I have said, we are absolutely unequivocal that Russia and Vladimir Putin are responsible for this war, and we are absolutely clear that they are responsible for the ongoing killing and aggression. That is why we stand four-square and iron-clad behind Ukraine, and we are working with the United States and our European allies to achieve a peace that is just and—most importantly—lasting. We know that Putin’s demands and intentions remain undiminished, and we need to ensure that Ukraine has the ability not only to defend itself, but to deter future aggression by Putin.

[Steve Darling (Torbay) (LD)]

This weekend, I will join with the Ukrainian community in Torbay to mourn the sad loss of a Ukrainian national who has died far from home. Almost 20,000 children have been stolen by the barbaric Putin regime; can the Minister advise the Chamber on what practical steps the Government are taking to get those children home?

[Stephen Doughty]

I was able to discuss some of the practical steps that we are taking on this important issue just a few weeks ago with the Deputy Foreign Minister of Ukraine and, indeed, with many of the organisations that are working on it. We are exploring further ways in which we can assist; we have already done a huge amount, and I look forward to seeing steps forward taken in due course. I am very happy to update the hon. Gentleman in writing with further details.

[Dr Scott Arthur (Edinburgh South West) (Lab)]

I am ashamed to admit that I have not yet been sanctioned by Russia—I am feeling a little bit lonely. Clearly, I have to do more to call out Putin’s barbaric war crimes. This House is always at its most united and its most passionate when we are talking about the need for a just peace in Ukraine, so can I ask the Minister very delicately whether he is convinced that all our international allies understand that for a peace to be lasting, it has to be just?

[Stephen Doughty]

I think that is well understood, and it is a point that we continue to underline in all of our conversations, whether across the Atlantic, across Europe or with other parties internationally. It is why we have supported the important work on the special tribunal on the crime of aggression; it is why we are supporting action on justice for crimes that have potentially been committed in Ukraine; and it is why we are continuing to support key institutions within Ukraine on these issues and have worked within the Council of Europe on these issues, too. We have been very clear that justice must come alongside sustainability and Ukraine’s ability to deter future aggression and of course to defend itself and its people right now.

[Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)]

The assistance that we have provided to our friends in Ukraine has included firefighting equipment, along with training on the use of that equipment. The devastation that took place overnight demonstrates that that assistance is still inadequate, so will the Minister undertake to review with the fire service Minister, the hon. Member for Nottingham North and Kimberley (Alex Norris), what extra provision we can provide? If we cannot provide anything, will he reach out to our international partners to encourage them to supply equipment, so that the fires can be brought under control and people’s lives saved?

[Stephen Doughty]

The hon. Member raises an important issue, and I know the huge support that has gone in. Indeed, I worked with colleagues on some of that in the previous Parliament. One of my friends in Ukraine was called up as a military firefighter in responding to some of those attacks on the cities. The need is huge, and we have been giving a huge amount of support on reconstruction, energy infrastructure and other issues. I am happy to look at the issues he raises and to see whether there is more we can do in that regard.

[Stephen Gethins (Arbroath and Broughty Ferry) (SNP)]

Pope Francis described pride as the most devious of sins, but I wonder if we can be granted a little bit of indulgence and the Minister can take some pride in colleagues from across the House joining the fine group of those who have been sanctioned by Russia. However, those who are doing the hard yards are in Ukraine. Can the Minister assure us that he believes that the United States still believes in Ukraine’s territorial integrity, for which those brave Ukrainians are fighting?

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Doughty]

I have been clear that we are working closely with President Trump and the United States, our European partners and others. I refer the hon. Member to the comments I made just a short while ago in response to the shadow Foreign Secretary. We are clear that Ukraine must be at the heart of these negotiations. That is why we are working closely with the United States, with our European partners and, crucially, with Ukraine. That was exactly what was happening in the technical talks yesterday here in London.

[Ben Obese-Jecty (Huntingdon) (Con)]

On Tuesday, I asked the Defence Secretary what our red lines would be at yesterday’s peace talks regarding any peace proposal from the US that required Ukraine to cede any of its sovereign territory to Russia. I did not receive an answer. Yesterday, US Vice-President J.D. Vance told reporters:

“Now, of course, that means the Ukrainians and the Russians are both going to have to give up some of the territory they currently own.”

Can the Minister now state that the Government will not support any US proposal that sees Russia make territorial gains at the expense of Ukraine upon any permanent cessation of hostilities?

[Stephen Doughty]

The hon. Member will understand that, like the Defence Secretary, I will not be drawn on the detail of the discussions yesterday. The only person that that would benefit is Vladimir Putin. We have been clear that we share the United States’ desire to bring this barbaric war to an end. Ultimately, though, it is for Ukraine to decide its future. Our position on that has not changed, and that is why we are working closely with Ukraine, our international partners and others to end the bloodshed and suffering caused by Russia. We are clear on who the aggressor is in this situation. We will continue to stand iron-clad with Ukraine.

[Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)]

I have nothing new to say about this, but since I was one of those included yesterday in the list of those who were no longer welcome in the Kremlin—not that I had thought I ever would be—I feel compelled to place on record that my determination to oppose and expose the brutality and illegality of Vladimir Putin and his Government is greater today than it was yesterday. Can the Minister do what he can to make sure that our resolve in this House is heard in the Kremlin and also, if necessary, in the White House?

[Stephen Doughty]

I am absolutely sure that the voices in this House are heard across the world. I have no doubt that the Kremlin is watching what is being said. Again, I condemn the sanction against the right hon. Member and other Members across the House. This terrible aggression by Russia and by Putin has often had the exact opposite effect of what he intended; it has strengthened NATO unity, and we have new members of NATO, increased defence spending, increased resolve, increased unity, and increased willingness to stand with Ukraine not just now but 100 years into the future. That is the message that we continue to send from this House and that we continue to send from our allies. It is the message that we must continue to send.

[Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)]

At the London talks, did the Government have the opportunity to discuss with allies the deployment of 155 members of the Chinese People’s Liberation Army in support of Russia against Ukraine?

[Stephen Doughty]

I am not going to get into the detail of the talks yesterday, but I will make it clear to the hon. Member that we are acting robustly against third-country support for Russia’s illegal war, including through our sanctions. We did so in relation to a series of matters, including the support of military industrial companies and others. The Foreign Secretary raised concerns with his Chinese counterpart on China’s supply of equipment to Russia and the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea’s relationship with Russia. We engage very closely on third-country support, in whatever form that takes, and we are not afraid to take action where that is necessary.

[Llinos Medi (Ynys Môn) (PC)]

I welcome the UK Government’s recent commitment to strengthening their energy partnership with Ukraine, which is crucial for Europe’s energy independence. I recently visited Urenco’s Capenhurst site, where an advanced nuclear fuels facility is being developed—a market that is currently dominated by Russia. Could the Minister outline how the UK Government are advancing this technology and what it means for the UK’s energy partnership with Ukraine?

[Stephen Doughty]

Diolch yn fawr; I appreciate the hon. Lady’s interest in these issues and her support. We have been doing a huge amount with Ukraine to support its energy sector against the terrible attacks that have been taking place, but we have also been working on how we might co-operate together on energy in the future. That is a crucial question for all of us across Europe. I continually raise with European and other counterparts the issue of removing the dependency on supplies from Russia and elsewhere. We need to look at new partnerships and ways forward in which we can support all our energy needs—whether that is through renewables, through nuclear or in other ways. This is an important issue, and I thank the hon. Lady for raising it.

[Dr Neil Shastri-Hurst (Solihull West and Shirley) (Con)]

Can the Minister update the House on whether yesterday’s meeting involved discussion of any potential future co-operation between the US and Russia on energy? If it did, did he impart to his US counterparts that such an arrangement would be a folly?

[Stephen Doughty]

As I said before, I will not get into the detail of talks and discussions. We are very clear on our position, which is that we need to support and stand with Ukraine. We are having productive and constructive talks. Those continued yesterday with the United States, European allies and others, and I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Llinos Medi) a moment ago.

[Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)]

How can the Minister describe yesterday’s talks as productive if the United States continues to make unreasonable demands of Ukraine that the United Kingdom does not support?

[Stephen Doughty]

I can describe those talks as productive and constructive because they were.

[Alison Bennett (Mid Sussex) (LD)]

It is being reported today that the White House is considering lifting its sanctions on the Russian Nord Stream natural gas pipeline —more evidence, in case it was needed, that this US Administration are increasingly siding with Russia. This is hugely concerning, as I am sure the whole Chamber agrees. May I please urge the Minister and the Department to use whatever leverage they have with the US Administration to prevent that from happening? If it does go ahead, what will the Government’s next steps be?

[Stephen Doughty]

The hon. Lady asks an important question about sanctions. The Prime Minister has been very clear that sanctions against Russia are a vital part of our armoury, and the UK is committed to maintaining our Russia sanctions—we are not considering lifting them. As the PM said in Paris, in order to get Russia to the table, we need to keep up the economic pressure to hinder its ability to wage war, and we need to deal with all the ways in which the war is being fuelled and supplied. The purposes of our sanctions are very clear: to stop Russia threatening and undermining Ukraine’s sovereignty, territorial integrity and independence; to help ensure that Russia pays for the damage it has caused; and to make sure that Ukraine is placed in the best possible position to secure a just and lasting peace. We will continue to work with the United States and all our allies on those important issues.

[Charlie Dewhirst (Bridlington and The Wolds) (Con)]

Further to the last question, there is rightly concern that Russia continues to bypass sanctions through its shadow fleet. What measures are the Government taking alongside our allies to prevent that?

[Stephen Doughty]

Since this Government came into office, we have ramped up our efforts, particularly on the issue of the shadow fleet, on which we first sought sanctions at the European Political Community summit, just days after coming into office. I can tell the hon. Gentleman that the impact of those sanctions has been substantial in constraining and taking down Russia’s ability to wage this war. Collectively, the sanctions by the previous Government and this Government have prevented $450 billion-worth of support to fuel Russia’s war. That could have paid for another three or four years of military aggression against Ukraine. We will not hesitate to consider further actions in this area; indeed, we have announced some of the biggest packages in recent weeks.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the Minister very much for his answers. I was one of those to be sanctioned, but what does that sanction mean? It means that my superyacht—I do not have one—cannot be taken to Vladivostok for the summer or for the winter, so I will have to take it to Ballywalter, the village where I was born and brought up, and put it alongside the rented rowing boat that I use now and again. The sanction will not stop me speaking up to tell it straight on Russia’s crimes, and let us remember what those are. There are the stolen children, whom the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South (Johanna Baxter) talked about. There are the thousands of men, women and children who have been murdered, and the church pastors who have disappeared. There was the massacre in Bucha. All those crimes anger us. This is about accountability: it is about making sure that the Russians who carried out those crimes will be held to account some day. By the way, I hope they are watching, because a sanction does not stop me, and it will not stop anyone else in this Chamber speaking up either.

I apologise for that introduction, but as I said earlier this week, peace is the goal, but not at any price. What discussions has the Minister had with the Ukrainians to ensure they understand that our support is there until the right deal is in place? What discussions have taken place with our American allies to ensure that we are still on the same page when it comes to making sure that Russian aggression is not rewarded and that Ukraine’s sacrifice is always remembered?

[Stephen Doughty]

I think the hon. Gentleman’s comments, like those of my hon. Friends, accurately capture the sentiments of this House. I condemn the sanction against him, but the reaction of him and other Members of this House should show everybody in the world—including Vladimir Putin, but also our allies and, most importantly, Ukraine—that our support remains ironclad and undiminished: it will strengthen rather than diminish.

I visited Bucha just a few weeks ago, and as with colleagues who have visited it, those scenes will never leave my mind. Let alone the horrific scenes we have seen over the last few weeks, the fact that that place has suffered so much—it is where priests were murdered and children were abducted, and just hours before I was there, further missiles came in and killed civilians—should leave nobody in any doubt whatsoever about who is the aggressor. It is Vladimir Putin and his regime. It is his war of aggression. Ukraine is the party that is serious about peace. We will work with Ukraine, the United States and our European allies in the endeavour to find that peace, but the ball is now very much in Vladimir Putin’s court.