Overseas Territories: Illicit Finance Dialogue and Beneficial Ownership Registers

Stephen Doughty Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd July 2025 Written Statements

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

In my statement of 3 July, I provided an update on progress made by our overseas territories on delivering on commitments at the Joint Ministerial Council in November 2024 on corporate transparency and beneficial ownership registers.

On 15 July, I convened a virtual illicit finance ministerial dialogue with elected leaders of the overseas territories, Ministers and senior officials and was pleased to be joined by Baroness Hodge, the Prime Minister’s anti-corruption champion.

We discussed the importance of working together to tackle the threats of illicit finance and the important role that beneficial ownership registers play as part of our toolkit.

In line with my previous statement of 3 July, we reviewed progress made in each overseas territory, and I have asked Baroness Hodge, in her capacity as the Prime Minister’s anti-corruption champion, to support me and other Ministers in working with the overseas territories to help deliver progress. As an immediate next step, Baroness Hodge will visit the British Virgin Islands to assess progress in implementing their commitments on beneficial ownership registers. She will report back to me after the summer. I will carefully consider what further steps to take in the light of this report.

Our next formal review of progress will be at the next Joint Ministerial Council scheduled in November. I and my officials will remain in close contact with the overseas territories prior to that to support completion of the commitments made previously.

I also updated overseas territory leaders and other delegates about the opportunity to work together in support of the Foreign Secretary’s illicit finance campaign and ahead of the countering illicit finance summit that is being planned in 2026.

I welcome the work of the overseas territories to implement international standards, including the Cayman Islands, which have been appointed by the Financial Action Task Force as guest members under the new regional bodies’ guest initiative.

Finally, we discussed the important role of the overseas territories in implementing and enforcing UK sanctions. I commended the efforts of the overseas territories to implement UK sanctions effectively and acknowledged the excellent progress that the overseas territories are making on building their sanctions capabilities.

I encouraged the overseas territories to strengthen their enforcement frameworks, in line with the outcomes of the UK’s own sanctions enforcement review, including by exploring introduction of civil monetary penalties for sanctions breaches in overseas territory jurisdictions and increasing information sharing on sanctions wherever possible. I underlined the ongoing Government commitment to support the overseas territories in this vital work.

[HCWS877]

Global Irregular Migration and Trafficking in Persons Sanctions Regulations 2025

Stephen Doughty Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd July 2025 Written Statements

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

Today I am updating the House on the introduction of “The Global Irregular Migration and Trafficking in Persons Sanction Regulations 2025” which will be laid before Parliament in due course and will be debated after the summer recess. These regulations are subject to the made affirmative procedure for secondary legislation.

This new sanctions regime is the first of its kind anywhere in the world and aims to tackle people smuggling and human trafficking and those that enable, facilitate, promote and profit from these vile trades. It is made under powers provided to the Government by the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Act 2018 and delivers on the commitment made in my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary’s speech in the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office’s Locarno room of 9 January to bring forward legalisation to tackle this evil trade as quickly as possible.

This regime will stop criminal gangs exploiting some of the most vulnerable, to prevent them profiting from risking the lives of innocent human beings, and to stop them getting rich and committing more crime on Britain’s streets.

The regulations provide extensive new powers enabling the Government to designate persons who are involved in people smuggling, trafficking in persons and the instrumentalisation of migration for the purpose of destabilisation. Those sanctioned under the regime face being banned from entering the UK, prevented from being a UK company director, and having any assets held in the UK frozen. These powers will complement our wider efforts to break the business model of those profiting from the misery of others in this way.

This regime delivers on the Government’s commitment to use every tool available to crack down on the abominable people smugglers risking people’s lives, including in the English channel. It gives the Government new powers to take direct action against them and their enablers in the way we can already against terrorists, cybercriminals and corrupt kleptocrats.

Sanctions experts from across Government have worked in close collaboration with the Home Office and law enforcement authorities to deliver an effective and targeted sanctions regime that will help stem the finance flows of people smugglers at source and deter them from taking part in this inhuman trade.

As the world’s first sanctions regime dedicated to targeting irregular migration and organised immigration crime, it will target individuals and entities wherever they are—from countries of origin to those who smuggle migrants across borders or enable and facilitate these dangerous journeys. It will allow the Government to sanction targets along the entire smuggling and trafficking chain, including companies involved in small boat supply chains and organised immigration criminals and their enablers.

While we are proud to be leading the way on this issue, people smuggling and human trafficking are not problems the UK faces alone, but shared global challenges. We will continue to play a leading role with our international partners to combat these joint challenges, including to strengthen our sanctions co-ordination.

This is part of the Government’s resolute mission to secure our borders and crack down on irregular migration. This Government have made irregular migration a priority from the outset, and we are continuing to break new ground on innovative approaches to address the challenge, including the recently agreed groundbreaking pilot with France to detain and return migrants who arrive via small boat. The Germans have also committed to amend their criminal legislation this year to explicitly cover facilitating irregular migration to the UK. This will save lives by disrupting the dangerous small boat supply chains of criminal networks.

The sanctions regime forms part of these wider efforts to secure our borders and disrupt and deter dangerous irregular migration, complementing new powers for law enforcement, including those introduced in the Border, Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill. In the last year, this Government have more than doubled asylum decision making—a 116% increase since the election. We have also made over 35,000 returns since the election—a 13% increase compared with the same period 12 months ago. We have increased illegal working raids and arrests by 50% in the last year, with 7,130 arrests and over 10,000 raids—the first time in a 12-month period where more than 10,000 raids have taken place.

By helping to smash the people smuggling gangs and tackle irregular migration flows upstream, this regime will play an important role in delivering the Government’s plan for change on behalf of the British people.

[HCWS879]

ODA Target 2024

Stephen Doughty Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd July 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:

The FCDO’s annual report and accounts 2024-25, published today, reports that in 2024, on a provisional basis, the United Kingdom did not meet its target to spend the equivalent of 0.7% of gross national income on official development assistance.

The International Development (Official Development Assistance Target) Act 2015 envisages situations in which a departure from meeting the target of spending 0.7% of GNI on ODA may be necessary, including due to economic circumstances, fiscal circumstances and circumstances arising outside the UK. The fiscal circumstances did not allow for ODA spending to be returned to 0.7% of GNI in 2024.

This Government are committed to restoring ODA spending at the level of 0.7% of GNI as soon as fiscal circumstances allow. The principles for a return will be met when, on a sustainable basis, the Government are not borrowing for day-to-day spending and underlying debt is falling. We will monitor future forecasts closely against these tests. The latest forecast from the Office for Budget Responsibility indicates that the tests will not be met in this Parliament. The Government are working hard to create the conditions to enable the ODA fiscal tests to be met by prioritising growth—stronger growth will help in time to get underlying debt down.

As required by section 2 of the 2015 Act, an unnumbered Act paper has been laid before Parliament and is in the same terms as this statement.

[HCWS888]

ODA 0.7% GNI Target 2024

Stephen Doughty Excerpts

Monday 21st July 2025 Written Statements

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

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

This statement will be made at a later date.

[HCWS874]

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]