Beneficial Ownership Registers: Overseas Territories

Stephen Doughty Excerpts

Thursday 3rd July 2025 Written Statements

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

Illicit finance, corruption, and kleptocracy pose a direct threat to our national security, economic resilience, and the integrity of the global financial system. The UK remains steadfast in its commitment to tackling these threats both at home and abroad by strengthening our defences and leading international efforts to ensure there is no safe haven for dirty money.

Illicit finance is a transnational challenge that thrives on opacity and weak governance. It undermines sustainable development, distorts markets, and erodes public trust. That is why this Government have made it a core priority to enhance transparency, restrict enablers of financial crime, and hold perpetrators of grand corruption to account.

In November, the Foreign Secretary launched a comprehensive illicit finance campaign, placing corporate transparency at the heart of our agenda. A key pillar of this work is the implementation of beneficial ownership registers across the overseas territories and Crown dependencies.

At the Joint Ministerial Council in November 2024, all overseas territories committed to increasing access to company ownership data. The Falkland Islands and St Helena pledged to implement fully public registers by April 2025, joining Montserrat and Gibraltar, which had already done so. Other territories—including Anguilla, Bermuda, the British Virgin Islands, the Cayman Islands, and the Turks and Caicos Islands—committed to implementing registers with legitimate interest access by June 2025, with appropriate safeguards to protect privacy in line with their constitutions.

Since then, we have worked closely with each territory to support implementation. I am pleased to report that progress has been made across the board, with several registers now operational.

I welcome the launch of St Helena’s fully public register on 30 June 2025.

The Falkland Islands reaffirmed their commitment to transparency in their public statement on 30 June and intend to implement their register by July 2026 due to capacity constraints. Preparatory work is under way, and UK support remains available to help implement their register as soon as possible.

Gibraltar has maintained a fully public register since 2020. I commend its leadership and welcome its efforts to improve user access.

Montserrat has also played a leading role by launching its public register in 2024. I welcome its leadership.

The Cayman Islands launched their legitimate interest register in February 2025, which allows access by a range of people, including journalists. I welcomed Premier Ebanks’ commitment to make further enhancements in our meeting last month, including more streamlined processes for multiple search requests, including on fees.

The Turks and Caicos Islands launched their legitimate interest register on 30 June, which was very welcome. My understanding is that further enhancements will be made to the TCI register, and we look forward to working with them to deliver on this. I had a constructive conversation with Premier Misick on Wednesday 2 July.

Anguilla is progressing towards implementation later this quarter, and we remain in close contact to support timely delivery. I welcome the discussions I have had with the new Premier Richardson-Hodge.

Bermuda is targeting implementation by July 2026, with interim access for obliged entities. I have made clear our expectation that Bermuda implements a register of beneficial ownership as soon as possible. Officials continue to be in touch with their counterparts in Bermuda to offer support in implementing its register as soon as possible.

The British Virgin Islands published a revised policy on 23 June. Although improvements have been made, I remain concerned about the system’s limitations, particularly regarding proactive investigations, and provision for data subjects to be notified of searches concerning their information. The delay on implementation to April 2026 is disappointing. It is important that further progress is made to improve functionality of their proposed registers. I have set clear expectations and officials are following up directly with counterparts in BVI to bridge this gap and to implement their register as soon as possible. The recent decision by the Financial Action Task Force to place the BVI under increased monitoring underlines our concerns.

Later this month, I intend to convene an illicit finance dialogue with elected leaders of the overseas territories. This will be an opportunity jointly to take stock of progress against the Joint Ministerial Council commitments on beneficial ownership registers, agree further remedial actions, and reaffirm our shared commitment to transparency and accountability. I am pleased that Baroness Hodge, the Prime Minister’s anti-corruption champion, will join us to share her insights and update us on her role and mandate. I will update the House following that dialogue.

[HCWS774]

British Indian Ocean Territory: Sovereignty

Stephen Doughty Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Priti Patel (Witham) (Con)]

(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs if he will make a statement on the ratification of the UK-Mauritius treaty on the future sovereignty of the British Indian Ocean Territory.

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

I thank the right hon. Lady for her question. On 22 May, the Diego Garcia treaty was signed and laid before the House. As the Defence Secretary told the House on the day of the signature, this treaty secures the strategically important UK-US military base on the island of Diego Garcia. The Diego Garcia military base is essential to the security of the UK and our key allies, including the United States, and is essential to keeping the British people safe. It is also one of our most significant contributions to the transatlantic defence and security partnership.

The base enables rapid deployment of operations and forces across the middle east, east Africa and south Asia, helping combat some of the most challenging threats, including from terrorism and hostile states, and it has a unique strategic location. The treaty ensures that the UK retains complete operational control of Diego Garcia well into the next century. It has robust security measures that prevent threats from the outer islands of the archipelago, including: a 24 nautical mile buffer zone where nothing can be built or placed without UK consent; a rigorous process to prevent activities on the wider islands; a strict ban on foreign security forces on the outer islands, whether civilian or military; and a binding obligation to ensure the base is never undermined. These robust provisions give the UK an effective veto over any activity that presents a clear and direct threat to the base on Diego Garcia, and they will categorically prevent our adversaries from compromising the base.

The treaty sets out that it can be ratified once both parties have completed their relevant domestic processes, and for the UK this of course includes scrutiny of the treaty by Parliament and making the necessary changes to domestic law. The treaty was laid before the House on the day of signature for scrutiny under the usual process set out in the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010. We welcome the report into the treaty by the International Agreements Committee in the other place, which recognised the importance of ratifying the treaty to secure the base, and the debate on Monday in the other place in which peers rejected a cynical Conservative motion to block ratification.

Nevertheless, before the treaty is ratified, the Government will also bring forward primary legislation, as I have said on many occasions, which will be scrutinised and debated in the usual way, and secondary legislation as necessary. Ahead of ratification, the Government will also make a ministerial statement in both Houses, providing a factual update on Chagossian eligibility for resettlement and on the modalities of the Chagossian trust fund. That will also enable further discussion in a proper manner. The treaty will then enter into force on the first day of the month following the date on which both parties have exchanged letters confirming these processes are complete.

This landmark agreement secures the future of our strategically critical UK-US military base on Diego Garcia. It is, as I said, a crucial contribution to the defence and security partnerships that we hold. As the Defence Secretary told this House, there was no alternative but to act, and in so doing we have protected Britons at home and overseas. [Interruption.] If the Opposition do not recognise that fact, why did they start negotiating in the first place?

[Priti Patel (Witham) (Con)]

Thank you, Mr Speaker for granting this urgent question. With the 21-day CRAG process about to conclude, it is a disgrace that Labour has breached the parliamentary conventions and denied the House a meaningful debate and vote on ratification. The Minister says that we will get a vote on the Bill, but having a vote on the Bill is not the same as voting on a treaty under CRAG.

Earlier this week, the House of Lords had a debate and vote, where the Lib Dems sided with Labour in backing this £30 billion surrender treaty, which is subsidising tax cuts in Mauritius. Why cannot we have a debate and vote in this House? What are Ministers afraid of? Are they afraid that their Back Benchers, now worried about benefit cuts and the impact of unpopular tax rises, will question why so much money is being handed over for a territory that we own and will force them into another embarrassing U-turn? Are they afraid that MPs across the House will do the maths even, and see that the actual amount of money going to Mauritius will be at least £30 billion and not the £3.4 billion accountancy valuation claim that Ministers talk about? Are they afraid that Labour’s barefaced hypocrisy and appalling treatment of the Chagossian community will be exposed?

The Minister once said:

“The people of Chagos must be at the heart of decisions about their future” —[Official Report, 28 October 2015; Vol. 601, c. 192WH.]

but this surrender treaty betrays them. He has betrayed them, leaving any decisions on resettlement and support through the trust fund in the hands of Mauritius.

With a legal case ongoing, will the Minister extend the CRAG process until all legal challenges have concluded? Will the Minister finally admit that Labour made October’s bad deal even weaker by giving up the unilateral right to extend the lease on the base and ditching the clause authorising the UK to exercise sovereign rights? The Prime Minister of Mauritius has said that it has done that, so will the Minister finally admit it? Will the Minister confirm that there are no guarantees that the current levels of marine protections will continue?

There is too much ambiguity; we have not had clarity. There are no guarantees on security or on safeguarding, unanswered questions about notification requirements around the base, and no guarantees that Mauritius will not pursue further lawfare to stop operations at the base if it thinks they contravene international law, including trying to block nuclear weapons, as the Pelindaba treaty now applies to the Chagos islands. The Minister should scrap this treaty or at least have the courage to bring it here for a proper debate, full scrutiny and finally a vote in this House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Doughty]

I genuinely have to say, as somebody who has respect for and likes the right hon. Lady, that I am disappointed by the tone of those remarks. I do not know who writes this stuff; I do not know whether it is just performative politics, or rhetoric—I don’t know what.

I should point out that I have received and answered over 100 written parliamentary questions from the right hon. Lady. I have answered over 250 questions in total on the deal and the process. We have had no fewer than six urgent questions in this House. We have had two statements from the Government, from the Foreign Secretary and the Defence Secretary. I personally briefed the right hon. Lady and answered many of her questions in my office just a couple of weeks ago, in good faith and in detail. I have been subjected, quite rightly, to robust scrutiny on these issues not only by the Foreign Affairs Committee, but by the International Relations and Defence Committee and the International Agreements Committee in the other House, in great detail.

I do not know whether the right hon. Lady and her team are simply not reading the transcripts or the answers to the questions, but I have repeatedly answered them. She might not like the answers, Mr Speaker, but I have answered these questions. I have set out the position on costs. I have set out the position on the security arrangements. I have set out the position on the vetoes that we have. The fact is that this deal secures this base, and it secures our national security and that of our allies. It is absolutely right that it has had proper scrutiny, and there will be a vote, because there will be a vote on the legislation that we will put before the House in due course.

[Phil Brickell (Bolton West) (Lab)]

On a recent visit to Washington with the Foreign Affairs Committee, I was struck by the support expressed by the US Government for the deal to secure the long-term future of the military base on Diego Garcia. Alongside the US, our Five Eyes allies support the deal, NATO supports the deal, and India supports the deal. Does the Minister agree that the Opposition would do well to listen to our closest neighbours and allies instead of trying to play party politics with our national security?

[Stephen Doughty]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. National security is the top priority of this Government, and working with our crucial allies, including the United States, is key to that. He is absolutely right to point out the support that was gained for this deal through a full and detailed inter-agency process in the United States, at the highest levels of the Administration, as well as the support from our Five Eyes partners and from India. The fact is that this deal secures the base and secures our capabilities, and it would not have been signed off if it did not do that.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

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

The shambolic process of securing this deal has left many questions for the House, but the glaring omission at the heart of that negotiation has been the failure by successive Governments to properly consult the Chagossian people. For much of their history, Chagossians have been denied consultation on who governs them and their right to self-determination. We Liberal Democrats now fear that in handing over the sovereignty of the islands to Mauritius without properly reflecting the interests of Chagossians, the Government are only reinforcing that legacy.

The right hon. Member for Witham (Priti Patel) criticises the actions of Liberal Democrat peers in the other place, yet only the Liberal Democrats championed the rights of the Chagossian people and secured a commitment from the Government to make statements to both Houses on their approach before ratification. In the light of those shortcomings, it is wrong that the Government have not brought the treaty to this House for scrutiny. Will the Minister reverse that decision today and give parliamentarians the opportunity to assess and vote on the final deal?

[Stephen Doughty]

I genuinely thank the hon. Gentleman for the generally constructive way in which he and his colleagues have approached the process. He is absolutely right to speak about the Chagossians. Indeed, as I have pointed out many times, the Chagossians’ interest in this matter has been at the heart of our discussions. We have the trust fund; we have the agreement to start visits again. Of course, Mauritius will be able to restart a programme of resettlement. He has heard the remarks made by my noble Friends in the other place, in response to the questions that his honourable colleagues raised. We have been very clear about what we will do in that regard, and I hold to that here today.

I have to challenge the suggestion that the treaty has not received scrutiny. It is receiving scrutiny right now. It has been receiving scrutiny in the Foreign Affairs Committee, it has received scrutiny in the other place, and it has received scrutiny through parliamentary questions. It is receiving scrutiny and it is absolutely right that it does.

[Tim Roca (Macclesfield) (Lab)]

The Minister has just set out the scrutiny that this matter has received in various places, but I was really taken by the number of questions that he said he had received from the shadow Foreign Secretary on this subject. Can he tell me how many questions he has received on other matters of global importance?

[Stephen Doughty]

My hon. Friend asks an important question. Since the treaty was laid, I have had 50 written questions from the right hon. Lady. In comparison, I have had four on Gibraltar, two on Ukraine, and one on Poland. He is right that this matter has received scrutiny.

[Mr Speaker]

I am not being funny, but it is amazing that the Minister had those figures to hand.

[Sir James Cleverly (Braintree) (Con)]

The hon. Gentleman, for whom I have a huge amount of respect, keeps saying that the Government had no choice but to do this deal. I do not believe that to be true. My successor, Lord Cameron, did not believe that to be true either, which is why neither he nor I signed off an agreement. Will the Minister please explain to the House in detail why he believed that he had no choice, including what body, at what time, and with what jurisdiction?

[Stephen Doughty]

In the interests of time, I refer the right hon. Member to the detailed evidence that I gave in the House of Lords on this matter the other day, including on the legal circumstances. He knows the risk to the operation of the base in the medium and short term, and he recognises the risk of a binding legal judgment, which we believed to be inevitable. His Government knew that, which is why they started the process. He may not have been able to conclude the deal—I accept that, Mr. Speaker—but the previous Government went through 11 rounds of negotiations because they recognised the importance of doing this deal. They knew that securing the facility was crucial to our national security. We put our national security and securing this base first, and that has met with the approval of the United States and other Five Eyes allies.

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

I have to admit that I am rather confused, because I am sure that the shadow Foreign Secretary was in the Cabinet when the decision was made to start these negotiations. Too often, we focus on the military aspects of this deal, but can the Minister confirm that it will also end a dangerous, irregular migration route into the UK?

[Stephen Doughty]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. This Government took early action—even before the conclusion of the deal—to ensure that that route was closed down by the memorandum of understanding that we reached with St Helena, for which I again thank St Helena. Again, Mr. Speaker, I was rightly scrutinised by this House on that. My hon. Friend is absolutely right on that point, and that is why we have done this deal.

[Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)]

Can the Minister tell the House why he thinks China supports this deal?

[Stephen Doughty]

I have been very clear on this: the United States, our Five Eyes partners and India support this deal. Mauritius was one of the few countries not to join the belt and road initiative. It is very clear that the deal is in the interests of our security and that of our allies—otherwise, the United States would not have agreed to it in the first place.

[John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)]

Clearly, language such as “surrender” is inflammatory and inappropriate. Conservative Members of this House wax lyrical and make a song and dance about national security. Will my hon. Friend remind them that on their watch, our armed forces were hollowed out, with the Army reaching its smallest size since the Napoleonic wars, and spending never once reached 2.5%? Is it not true that Labour is the party of strong defence and strong national security?

[Stephen Doughty]

My hon. Friend is right. Whether it is in the ambitious agenda for national security and defence set out in the strategic defence review, in the unity and leadership we showed at the NATO summit last week, or in securing our crucial national security bases, including Diego Garcia, this Government are leading from the front when it comes to national security. Quite frankly, the Conservative party is showing some brass neck after hollowing out our armed forces, leaving this deal undone and so many other things. I simply do not understand it, Mr. Speaker.

[Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)]

I simply ask the Minister the same question that I asked when he first came to the House on this matter. In relation to the cost consequences of this deal, he knows that the lion’s share of the interest lies with the military base on Diego Garcia. Therefore, what contribution is the United States making to the very significant costs of compensating the Mauritian people?

[Stephen Doughty]

The United States makes significant and crucial contributions to the operations from Diego Garcia. They are of a quantum much greater than the cost that we will pay in relation to the base under this deal. The benefit to the United Kingdom, the United States and our allies is priceless, and this Government will not scrimp on our national security.

[Peter Swallow (Bracknell) (Lab)]

The cost of this deal is equivalent to a quarter of 1% of our defence budget, and that is in the context of a Government who have made the highest sustained increase in defence spending since the cold war. When the Minister speaks to our international friends and allies, what is their message about the work that we are doing to restore confidence in national security and our reputation on the global stage? And what message should the Opposition take from those conversations?

[Stephen Doughty]

I repeatedly hear a strong vote of confidence in our investment in national security and defence, whether it is from our European partners or from the United States. One just has to look at our leadership at the NATO summit and our ongoing support for Ukraine, which we agree on across the House. My hon. Friend asks about the value and the costs. I have set out the costs on a number of occasions, but, as he says, it is just a fraction of 1% of our annual defence budget. It would pay to run the NHS for just five hours. It also compares favourably with other allies. For example, France pays approximately €85 million a year for its base in Djibouti. Diego Garcia is 15 times larger and the capabilities are priceless.

[Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)]

The Minister rightly says that the base on Diego Garcia is vital for our national security, and we all agree on that. The key issue is what notification has to be given to the Mauritius Government for the base to be used for operational purposes.

[Stephen Doughty]

My hon. Friend the Minister of State for the Armed Forces has replied to multiple questions on this topic, as have I. Indeed, I answered these questions in the due scrutiny that I received the other day. We do not have to provide notification in advance. The treaty refers to “expeditiously” informing after the event, and that is absolutely the normal course of business. I am clear that the operations and the operational autonomy of this base are secure under this deal.

[Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)]

It is amazing that we are to give up an important security base without it being necessary to do so, that we are to pay billions to a Government that will allow them to make tax cuts while we impose tax burdens on our own country, and that the Minister stands here today at the Dispatch Box and says that he does not have time to explain why it is necessary to do so. Surely the way to ensure that we have proper scrutiny of this deal is to have a proper debate, or is he afraid that his own Back Benchers, once they hear the real story, will find it as difficult to walk through the Lobby for it as they did for the welfare reform Bill yesterday?

[Stephen Doughty]

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

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

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

[Stephen Doughty]

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

[Dr Luke Evans (Hinckley and Bosworth) (Con)]

In the Minister’s response, he quoted the answer from the Defence Secretary to my question, saying that he had no choice. But the reason for doing this deal is the worry about being taken to court—so the Government do have a choice, and that is what my constituents and Opposition Members are so upset about. The Government could have a fight in the court and appeal the decision, yet they have chosen not to, and they will not explain why.

Will the Minister set out what the need was for immediacy and why he and his Government will not go to the court for the tribunal he is so worried about to have that fight? If the case were shut down, Opposition Members would understand, and if it was found that we had a legal responsibility to pay, we would do so, but we do not, and we have not had our day in court as a country. That is the travesty of the deal.

[Stephen Doughty]

I have to correct the hon. Member as we have had days in court on this issue. That is one of the reasons—[Interruption.] There was the non-binding judgment in the International Court of Justice. He also forgets to mention the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea, the votes in the United Nations and all the other legal processes. The fact is, it is our view—indeed, it was the view of the previous Government—that a legally binding judgment would inevitably follow. Leaving such a key national security asset in that way is not responsible; no, the responsible thing to do is to secure the base with our allies, and that is exactly what we have done.

[Richard Tice (Boston and Skegness) (Reform)]

While China might support this terrible deal, let me tell the Minister that the British people do not support this appalling deal, giving away our strategic security asset and paying tens of billions of our taxpayers’ money in the process. Our taxpayers will be suffering tax rises for that in order that the Mauritians get tax cuts. Since the Government are in the mood for U-turns, why do they not take the hint and U-turn on this terrible Chagos deal?

[Stephen Doughty]

I will not take any lessons from a party that fawns over Vladimir Putin.

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

In the Defence Secretary’s statement on 22 May, he stated with regard to potential legal rulings against us that

“The most proximate, and the most potentially serious, is the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea.”—[Official Report, 22 May 2025; Vol. 767, c. 1291.]

The US, which operates the base, is not even a signatory to UNCLOS. How would ITLOS have ruled a binding legal judgment that we would have recognised? It is notable that ITLOS has not been mentioned since that statement?

[Stephen Doughty]

I am confused—I have mentioned ITLOS on a number of occasions, including just a moment ago. The long-standing view of the United Kingdom is that the UK would not have a realistic prospect of successfully defending its legal position on sovereignty in such litigation. Even if we chose to ignore binding judgments made against us—we would not do so—their legal effect on third countries and international organisations would give rise to real impacts to the operation of the base and the delivery of its national security functions.

International organisations have already adopted decisions based on Mauritian sovereignty, and others would follow suit following such litigation. That could affect the electromagnetic spectrum, access to the base by air and by sea, and the ability to patrol the maritime area around the base and to support the base’s critical national security functions. Further, the UK would likely face a provisional measures order in a matter of weeks. The position is clear, and we have explained it. The hon. Member’s previous Government knew exactly the same. [Interruption.] However much he shouts and however much he does not like the arguments, they are the facts.

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)]

Will the Minister confirm that 40 years ago the most disgusting, cynical injustice was done against the Chagos islanders and that it was their resolute campaigning over decades—often alone, with little friendship or support—that eventually brought the whole case to international law and an opinion from the International Court of Justice, which has brought about the situation we are now in? Instead of obsessing with the twilight of empire, should Opposition parties not be thinking about the injustice done to the Chagos islanders?

Will the Minister confirm that in the arrangements now being made, the Chagos islanders, wherever they are resident, and whatever their opinions are, do have a right of return? Will he give us some idea of what the attitude will be about the right of visit, the right of residence and the right of return to Diego Garcia, where the majority of the Chagos islanders have come from? They are a people who have been badly treated by history and are now being used as pawns by people more interested in defending some strange notion of the twilight of empire than justice for the Chagos islanders.

[Stephen Doughty]

The primary purpose of the deal was of course to secure the base on Diego Garcia and the national security of the UK and our allies, but the right hon. Member is right to point out the historical situation regarding the Chagossians. We have expressed deep regret for how they were removed from the islands in the 1960s and ’70s; indeed, that is on the face of the treaty. We recognise the importance of the islands to the Chagossians as well as the different views in the community, which he is well acquainted with.

We will be restarting those visits, including to Diego Garcia. The programme of resettlement to islands outside Diego Garcia will be for Mauritius to determine, but we have committed to Members on the Liberal Democrat Benches in the other place that we will provide further statements on how that will work in due course. There is also the trust fund and the support we provide here in the UK. We are listening to the different Chagossian groups and trying to ensure that their interests are at the heart of the treaty deal as we move forward.

[Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)]

The Minister will be aware of a pending judicial review challenge focused on the lack of consultation with the Chagossians. Why was there not full and adequate consultation with the Chagossian people?

[Stephen Doughty]

I will not comment on ongoing judicial matters, but as I have set out a number of times the negotiations were necessarily between the UK and Mauritius. However, we recognise the importance of the islands to Chagossians, which is why the measures that I just set out have been put in place.

[James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)]

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. In answer to the hon. Member for St Ives (Andrew George), the Minister seemed to imply—to Opposition Members’ ears anyway—that the United States would be paying, I think he said, a larger quantum of the funding for the deal. I think he was referring to the operational cost of the base. May I ask for confirmation that the United States is not contributing at all to the £30 billion lease under the settlement?

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Roger Gale)]

Order. That is not a point of order for the Chair, as the hon. Gentleman will appreciate, but if the Minister wishes to respond I will allow him to do so.

[Stephen Doughty]

Further to that point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Perhaps it was because of the noise and the shouting, but I was clear. The United States contributes to the operations on Diego Garcia, and rightly so. There is establishment of that in relation to the exchange of notes between the UK and the United States. It is not contributing towards the costs of the treaty deal.

Armenia and Azerbaijan: Arms Embargo

Stephen Doughty Excerpts

Tuesday 1st July 2025 Written Statements

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

This statement supersedes the written ministerial statement of 2 July 2014 on the “Arms Embargo (Azerbaijan and Armenia)” —[Official Report, 2 July 2014; Vol. 583, c. 60WS.]

The UK regularly reviews export policy to embargoed destinations in light of our international obligations and the situation on the ground, to ensure that implementation continues to be legally robust, diligent and consistent with the terms of the sanctions in place.

The Government will apply the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe arms embargo to weapons, ammunition and munitions that might be used on the land border between Armenia and Azerbaijan by military, police, security forces and related Government entities. Weapons, ammunition and munitions are those items specified in entries ML1, 2, 3 and 4 of the UK Military List of the Export Control Order 2008. Supplies of such equipment to other end users, such as humanitarian, peacekeeping, research or media organisations, will not be considered subject to the embargo unless there is a risk of diversion to the land border for use by the military, police, security forces and related Government entities of either state.

This is a change from the 2 July 2014 UK interpretation of the arms embargo, which included the supply of all military list equipment to military, police and security forces and related governmental entities, where this equipment could be used in the Nagorno-Karabakh region, or on the land border between Azerbaijan and Armenia.

This revision is consistent with the precursor to the OSCE, the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe’s declaration of 1992, which requested an embargo on

“all deliveries of weapons and munitions to forces engaged in combat in the Nagorno-Karabakh area”.

Export and trade licence applications for Armenia and Azerbaijan will continue to be assessed on a case-by-case basis against the UK strategic export licensing criteria, and the Government will not issue a licence where to do so would be inconsistent with any of the criteria. The UK will continue to monitor the situation on the ground and keep the arms embargo under review.

We strongly support the efforts of both parties to find a lasting peace.

[HCWS760]

Gavi: UK Support 2026 to 2030

Stephen Doughty Excerpts

Thursday 26th June 2025 Written Statements

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

My noble Friend the Minister of State for International Development, Latin America and Caribbean (the right hon. Baroness Chapman of Darlington) has today made the following statement:

I wish to inform the House that the Government have pledged new support to Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance. This announcement was made at the global summit on health and prosperity through immunisation in Brussels on 25 June, reaffirming this Government’s commitment to multilateral efforts on global health.

As Gavi’s inaugural board chair, Nelson Mandela, noted over 20 years ago,

“Life or death for a young child too often depends on whether he or she is born in a country where vaccines are available”.

While we have made remarkable progress in correcting for these inequities, the job is still not done. More than 5 million children under five still die each year from preventable causes, including vaccine-preventable diseases.

The UK Government were proud to have supported the creation of Gavi, which, since its inception in 2000, has enabled the vaccination of over 1 billion children, saving an estimated 18 million lives. Today, we are proud to invest alongside others in the sustained efforts to support every child to have a fairer start in life.

The UK will invest £1.25 billion over five years, from 2026 to 2030, in support of Gavi’s mission. This will support the immunisation of 62.5 million children, saving around 1.25 million lives. But it is not just because this investment is pursuing an obvious good that we invest. We also make this commitment as Gavi remains a vital partner in delivering our ambition for a safer and more prosperous world. The threats we face are evolving. Covid-19 taught us that diseases do not respect borders, and with anti-microbial resistance already contributing to rising mortality, the link between national and global health security has never been clearer. Gavi supports UK public health—and therefore protects the NHS—by preventing disease. Gavi prevents disease both through routine immunisation and through global stockpiles of vaccines to respond to outbreaks, such as Ebola or cholera, in order to prevent these diseases reaching our shores.

Gavi works directly with UK pharmaceutical companies to develop and manufacture vaccines, such as the MenFive vaccine against meningitis and the RTS, S and R21 vaccines against malaria. This investment in the UK’s science sector supports economic growth and job creation, putting money in the pockets of British people.

As the UK pursues a modern approach to development, Gavi must also continue to deliver on its model of partnership, not paternalism. In the last 25 years, 19 countries have successfully transitioned from Gavi support to fully self-finance their immunisation programmes, and some have themselves become Gavi donors. But there is more to be done.

Multilateral health organisations must go further to maximise impact. This means putting country needs at the heart of the future approach. It requires simplifying processes, working more closely together, and strengthening national health systems to deliver. The multilateral system must help countries to take the lead in delivering universal health coverage and to accelerate the move to funding their own systems.

[HCWS746]

Oral Answers to Questions

Stephen Doughty Excerpts

Tuesday 24th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Edward Morello (West Dorset) (LD)]

2. What recent discussions he has had with Cabinet colleagues on the UK’s involvement in the Security Action for Europe initiative.

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

This Government are strengthening ties with our European allies to deliver mutual benefits for our prosperity and security. As the strategic defence review laid out, we need a resilient and competitive European defence industrial base to deliver the capabilities that we need at speed and scale. With that UK-EU security and defence partnership now agreed, securing the UK’s swift participation in Security Action for Europe is a priority for the Government, and, of course, these partnerships complement and reinforce NATO’s role as the cornerstone of Euro-Atlantic security.

[Edward Morello]

In an increasingly unstable world, working with our European allies on defence and weapons production is vital for our security and our economy. If investment is needed, providing it should not stand in the way of the opportunity to support UK defence manufacturers, enable joint research and development and promote Britain’s strategic interests on the global stage. What recent discussions has the Minister had with his European counterparts about ensuring that the UK has access to the Security Action for Europe fund?

[Stephen Doughty]

I have been having regular conversations, as have the Foreign Secretary and colleagues across the Ministry of Defence and the Cabinet Office. I was in Poland just last week discussing with our Polish allies our important collaboration. The week before that, I was in Rome with the Weimar+ group. These are all active and ongoing conversations and, as the hon. Member said, they are absolutely crucial at a time of such geopolitical uncertainty.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

3. How much funding his Department plans to provide to Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance for the 2026 to 2030 period.

--- Later in debate ---

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

Our work on water, sanitation and hygiene helps deliver development objectives on global health, climate and growth. We support eight countries in Africa and Asia to develop climate-resilient water, sanitation and hygiene services and prevent the spread of diseases, including cholera. We are working through the World Bank and the global challenge programme on water to reach 300 million with water services by 2030.

[Brian Mathew]

Recent polling by WaterAid and YouGov shows that access to water, sanitation and hygiene is the No. 1 priority that the UK public want to see funded through UK aid. That makes sense, given that water underpins global health, keeps girls in school and builds climate-resilient communities. Does the Minister agree that it is one of the smartest and most cost-effective ways to deliver the UK’s development goals? Without access to safe water, sanitation and hygiene, there can be no meaningful progress in any of those areas.

[Stephen Doughty]

The hon. Gentleman makes important points. I had the pleasure of seeing many important water and sanitation projects in my previous career. We are concentrating on maintaining our impact by focusing on partnerships with Governments and multilaterals, and establishing the conditions that can secure additional domestic funding and private investment in those areas. He rightly makes the link between water and sanitation and health, and that will be considered as we approach future funding allocations.

[Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)]

9. What changes were made to the draft agreement to transfer sovereignty over the Chagos islands to Mauritius between October 2024 and May 2025.

[David Reed (Exmouth and Exeter East) (Con)]

14. How much and what proportion of the funding due to be allocated to Mauritius as part of the agreement concerning the Chagos archipelago will come from his Department.

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

The Diego Garcia military base deal secures the future of the strategically critical US-UK military base. It will protect our national security for generations and ensure we maintain vital capabilities. It is our most significant contribution to the transatlantic defence and security partnership. It has been strengthened since our agreement with the previous Mauritian Government and, indeed, from the deal under discussion by the previous Government. The payments will be split between the FCDO and the Ministry of Defence, and published in the usual way. The Opposition understand the jeopardy facing the base and the necessity of the treaty, which is why they started negotiating in the first place.

[Sir John Hayes]

The Foreign Secretary is an old friend and the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs, the hon. Member for Lincoln (Mr Falconer), is a Lincolnshire neighbour whom, in all his innocence, I regard with a degree of paternal care, so I ask this question more in sorrow than in anger. The assumption rooted in the Government’s statements is that unless we do a deal with Mauritius, the International Telecommunication Union could decide that Mauritius is sovereign and deny access to both the US and the UK. That is fundamentally untrue. The ITU has no competence in that regard and it is ignored by the US already, so will the Minister confirm that that argument is entirely bogus? This is not a deal. This is not diplomacy. It is a disgrace.

[Stephen Doughty]

I thoroughly reject that statement by the right hon. Gentleman. He knows that I have a lot of respect for him, but I am afraid that he is completely mistaken on this. The fact is that the courts were already making decisions that undermined our position, legally binding provisional measures could have come within weeks, affecting the operational ability of the base to function as it was, and we believe that an inevitable binding judgment would have followed. The deal has been done and this House is now scrutinising it. I have appeared before two Committees in recent weeks, and of course there will be further such scrutiny over the weeks ahead.

[Stuart Anderson]

If the US wanted to launch an attack on Iran from Diego Garcia in the current circumstances, would the UK Government support it?

[Stephen Doughty]

As the Foreign Secretary has made absolutely clear, there was no UK involvement in the US strikes on Iran. The hon. Gentleman will understand that we do not comment on private conversations with our allies or on hypothetical operations.

[David Reed]

I had hoped for a more precise answer to my question. Rather than pressing again for exact figures or a departmental breakdown, let me proceed down a related line of inquiry. Is there any mechanism, legal or otherwise, that the Mauritian Government could use to reopen the Chagos negotiations or to request further financial or material assistance in a way that could result in additional cost to the British taxpayer?

[Stephen Doughty]

I have set out the costs very clearly. They average out at £101 million over the course of the deal. That compares very favourably with, for example, what France pays for its military facility in Djibouti. This treaty has been entered into in good faith by the UK and Mauritius, it will be legally binding, and we are absolutely clear that it is compliant with international law and all our other obligations.

[Blair McDougall (East Renfrewshire) (Lab)]

When the Foreign Affairs Committee was in Washington recently, we raised the Diego Garcia deal with the Administration. They could not have been more enthusiastic for this deal, because they recognise that it secures our strategic interests in the area. Does the Minister agree that it is perhaps time for Conservative Members to stop playing politics with national defence?

[Stephen Doughty]

I could not agree more. This deal is supported by the United States, by our Five Eyes partners and by India. It secures our national security, the security of our allies and the base well into the next century. As I have said many times, if there was not a problem, why did the previous Government start negotiating?

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Con)]

Labour’s surrender of British sovereignty has been welcomed by China, Russia and Iran, and now we learn that the UK will have to notify Mauritius of any military operations coming from Diego Garcia, jeopardising our national security. Far from upholding our international obligations, this treaty is a shameful betrayal of British Chagossians, with no guarantee of access to the Mauritian-controlled £40 million trust fund and British taxpayers forking out £30 billion to subsidise tax cuts in Mauritius. Why will the Government not allow this House a proper debate and a vote before next week’s 21-day deadline under the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010? Should we not keep the Chagos islands British and under the protection of the Crown? Would that not be a better policy?

[Stephen Doughty]

Half of the hon. Gentleman’s question was rhetoric and half of it was completely wrong. He might want to consider correcting the record on a number of points. We do not have to inform Mauritius before undertaking military action from the base; that relates to expedition information after actions, so there is no fettering of our ability to operate from there. The costs he quoted were simply wrong. It is £101 million averaged over the course of the deal, and the net present value of the payments is £3.4 billion. All sorts of wild figures have been posted around, but they do not reflect the reality. This has been considered by the Government Actuary. I would really have hoped, given the wide geopolitical threats that this country and our allies face at the moment, that he would come up with some more serious questions.

[Oliver Ryan (Burnley) (Ind)]

11. What steps he is taking to strengthen the UK’s relationship with the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.

--- Later in debate ---

[Blake Stephenson (Mid Bedfordshire) (Con)]

T4. At the Foreign Affairs Committee yesterday, the Minister for the overseas territories, the hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty), was unable to give clear guarantees about the future of the Chagos marine protected area once the sovereignty of the Chagos islands is surrendered to Mauritius. Does the Foreign Secretary accept that his Chagos surrender deal does not currently secure the marine environment, and that a future environmental protection agreement may result in the UK paying even more money to Mauritius?

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

It is a shame that the hon. Gentleman’s question takes that tone; I thought we had a very constructive conversation yesterday, and I took on board the points made by him and by the Chair of the Committee, my right hon. Friend the Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry). I assure the hon. Gentleman that the marine protected area is a key part of our agreement with Mauritius, and this Government are committed to protecting our oceans and natural resources globally.

[Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South and Walkden) (Lab)]

T6. Tulsi Gabbard, the US Director of National Intelligence, said in March that Iran was not building a nuclear weapon, as did the UN atomic energy agency. However, a day before a conference on recognising Palestine, Israel decided unilaterally that Iran had a nuclear weapon, and that there was an immediate threat of attack; it therefore bombed Iran. Israel’s illegal bombing was a distraction from the shooting and killing of starving Palestinians, and to prevent the recognition of the state of Palestine. Can I ask the Minister—

--- Later in debate ---

[Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)]

Melia, Gvaramia, Badri Japaridze, Khazaradze, Zurab Japaridze and Vashadze: all six opposition leaders arrested over the last two weeks in Georgia. What are the British Government going to do about it, and what is the message from the British Government to the Georgian people, who are suffering as a result of this huge democratic backsliding?

[Stephen Doughty]

The Georgian people have made clear their Euro-Atlantic aspirations. We absolutely condemn not only those arrests of opposition politicians, but the closing down of civil society space. I have communicated my concerns directly to Georgian Dream in recent weeks, and will be doing so again.

Women, Peace and Security: Annual Report

Stephen Doughty Excerpts

Tuesday 17th June 2025 Written Statements

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

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State at the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, my noble Friend Lord Collins of Highbury, has today made the following statement:

I wish to inform the House that the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, together with the Ministry of Defence, is today publishing the 2024 annual report on progress against the UK’s fifth women, peace and security national action plan.

The report published today demonstrates the Government’s commitment to transparency and accountability on the women, peace and security agenda, outlining progress since February 2024, and against the NAP’s five strategic objectives. The report also provides case studies on the NAP’s implementation objectives, and has included case studies from Afghanistan, Democratic Republic of Congo, Ethiopia, Syria, Ukraine, Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories, and Sudan.

The Government have committed to build on the approach and ambition of the UK’s current and fifth NAP, published under the previous Government in February 2023, advancing implementation and updating priorities. As part of the Government’s commitment to transparency, we will engage with civil society, and the all-party parliamentary group on women, peace and security, as we refresh the NAP and prior to publication.

The recently published strategic defence review makes it clear that the threats we now face are more serious and less predictable than at any time since the end of the cold war. The SDR sets out a vision to make Britain safer, secure at home and strong abroad. As we invest in defence, we must recognise that the women, peace and security agenda is critical to our success. This means strengthening women’s representation in security and defence, as well as ensuring that gender dynamics are fully considered in our approach to national security, transnational threats and operational effectiveness.

In this 25th anniversary year of the WPS agenda, I want to reiterate the Government’s commitment to advancing women’s full, equal, meaningful and safe participation in political, security and peace processes. This Government will continue to advance gender equality and empower women and girls through our international action.

[HCWS706]

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.