Oral Answers to Questions
Stephen Doughty Excerpts(1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Stephen Doughty)
NATO is the cornerstone of UK and Euro-Atlantic security. Indeed, the first act of this Government was to publicly state our commitment to a “NATO first” defence policy. We regularly discuss NATO with our allies; NATO Foreign and Defence Ministers meet three times a year, with the most recent Foreign Ministers’ meeting having been in December, which the Foreign Secretary and I both attended.
Richard Foord
For 75 years, NATO has stood as a bulwark against territorial acquisition, and NATO is stronger when all its members stand against that. What discussions does the Foreign Secretary plan to have with the President-elect of the United States about the status of Denmark, Greenland and Canada? Will the Foreign Secretary remind President-elect Trump that when he pronounces on how he would like to expand the United States’ sphere of influence, NATO’s adversaries are also watching?
Stephen Doughty
As the Foreign Secretary made clear last week, Greenland is part of the Kingdom of Denmark, and the future of its constitutional arrangements is a matter for the people and Government of Greenland and, indeed, the Kingdom of Denmark. It would be wrong to speculate on any policy decisions that the incoming Administration of President-elect Trump may make. I delivered those messages during a meeting with the Greenlandic Foreign Minister yesterday. There are, rightly, important concerns about security in the Arctic, which is why I was proud to be one of the first British Ministers in 10 years to attend the Arctic Circle Assembly and meet partners to discuss these issues just a few months ago.
Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab)
May I congratulate the Foreign Office on the inspired appointment of our new ambassador in Washington DC? Not many candidates would be able to fill the shoes of Dame Karen Pierce, who has represented UK interests so exceptionally in both New York and Washington; she is an inspirational leader and a skilled diplomat.
Lord Mandelson’s appointment is unusual, however. It is not often that circumstances demand that the UK appoint someone who is not a career diplomat to be our ambassador to such a key NATO ally. To silence critics and to show respect to Parliament and its Committees, will the Foreign Office agree that we should return to the policy of the previous Labour Government, and allow Lord Mandelson the time to come before my Committee before he leaves for the United States? That will allow my colleagues to hear directly why the Prime Minister has appointed him, and to learn what his priorities are in this crucial diplomatic role.
Stephen Doughty
We are absolutely convinced that Lord Mandelson will do an excellent job as our representative in Washington, and it was a pleasure to meet him last week and discuss his plans as he prepares to take up his post. Obviously we have one ambassador at a time, but I am sure that we will consider any request that my right hon. Friend makes in due course in the normal way in which we consider requests from her Committee.
Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Con)
The NATO alliance stands at the cornerstone of our defence and has been essential to the security of the free world. Given the importance of the Indo-Pacific security alliance, strengthening co-operation and dialogue with key allies in the region has been paramount, and our military base on Diego Garcia is a vital British-American strategic asset. However, Ministers have failed to give answers to questions about its future, or about the costs involved in the proposed treaty with Mauritius. Will the Minister give one straight answer? Will he make a commitment to the House to wait until President Trump is in office and has had time to discuss this deal with the new Administration before finalising any agreement with Mauritius—yes or no?
Stephen Doughty
The shadow Minister is right about the importance of security in the Indo-Pacific. Indeed, when we see North Korean troops fighting in Russia and Ukraine, when we see Iranian missiles being used and when we see military companies elsewhere in the Indo-Pacific region supplying Russia, it is crucial that we see global security as one. As you know, Mr Speaker, I have answered many questions about the matter to which the hon. Gentleman has referred. Our deal secures the future security of the base on Diego Garcia, and it has support across the US Administration and across the United States national security apparatus. We will come forward with details in due course.
Calum Miller (Bicester and Woodstock) (LD)
As my hon. Friend the Member for Honiton and Sidmouth (Richard Foord) pointed out, President-elect Trump has threatened to use force to seize the Panama canal and Greenland, and he has promised tariffs of 25% on Canada and Mexico. Whatever else we can predict about the presidency that begins next Monday, we know that it will be unpredictable. May I therefore ask the Minister what steps his Government has taken to Trump-proof UK foreign policy so that we cannot be held hostage in the security, economic or climate realm by a President who puts short-term deals ahead of long-term relationships, and what specific steps the Government have taken to accelerate an improvement in the UK’s relationship with European partners since 5 November?
Stephen Doughty
On the hon. Gentleman’s last point, he knows very well the commitments that we have made to European security through NATO—and, indeed, through our reset of relations not only with the European Union but across Europe—and the leadership that we have shown in, for example, tackling the Russian shadow fleet by working with partners across Europe, a process that we began at the European Political Community summit. The special relationship endures—it has endured, and it will continue to endure—and we look forward to working with President-elect Trump and his team on a range of issues. I have already given an answer in relation to Greenland; in relation to Panama, we respect the Torrijos–Carter treaties and recognise the important role that Panama plays in world trade.
Sarah Green (Chesham and Amersham) (LD)
Robin Swann (South Antrim) (UUP)
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Stephen Doughty)
I first would like to offer my deep condolences to all those affected by the dreadful wildfires we have seen in California and, indeed, in relation to the terror attacks we saw in Las Vegas and New Orleans, where tragically we also lost a British national. I know the thoughts of the whole House are with the United States at this difficult time.
The 250th anniversary of US independence will be a significant moment to recognise the work of generations of Americans and Britons over a quarter of a millennium to build the special relationship. We have come a long way since 1776, and I am excited by the ambitious US plans to mark the occasion, and I look forward to celebrating our partnership and our special relationship in 2026.
Robin Swann
I join the Minister in his opening comments. The 250th anniversary of the declaration of independence presents a unique opportunity to promote cultural and historical links between Northern Ireland and the United States, because at least five signatories of the declaration have direct Ulster links. The declaration itself was printed by an Ulster Scot—John Dunlap from Strabane. The great seal of the United States was designed by Charles Thomson from Upperlands, and 17 of the US Presidents can claim Ulster Scots roots. However, the Government’s introduction of an electronic travel authorisation scheme will have a devastating impact on tourism—
Mr Speaker
Order. The anniversary will have passed if we don’t get to the end—come on.
Stephen Doughty
We learn new things every day. I am delighted to hear about the heritage of the hon. Gentleman’s part of the world in relation to the United States. My own family dates back to the late 1700s in Pennsylvania—we are not sure which side they fought on. Later, my grandfather came over during the second world war to fight alongside us against Nazi tyranny in Europe. Those special relationship are part of all our communities and families, and we absolutely want to celebrate them across all our countries.
Alex Baker (Aldershot) (Lab)
Calum Miller (Bicester and Woodstock) (LD)
There is strong evidence that Russia has sought to influence the outcome of elections in Georgia, Moldova and Romania, and it may now be doing so in Germany. Is the Foreign Secretary confident that the current measures to track Russian money and misinformation in the UK is sufficient to protect the UK from similar interference, and does he think that the role of Russian money in funding UK political parties should be investigated to ensure that our elections remain free and fair?
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Stephen Doughty)
The hon. Gentleman will be aware of the important work of the defending democracy taskforce, which works across Government here in the United Kingdom. We closely monitor developments in other countries; we have stood alongside our European partners, including Moldova specifically, in response to these efforts at interference; and of course, we recently appointed Margaret Hodge as our illicit finance and kleptocracy champion, to tackle many of the issues the hon. Gentleman has raised in relation to money.
Chris Ward (Brighton Kemptown and Peacehaven) (Lab)
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
Stephen Doughty
As I have said in the House on many occasions, there is no rush. [Interruption.] No, it is a fact that negotiations on this issue were going on for two years under the previous Government, with 10 rounds of failed negotiations. We have secured a deal that is in all of our interests and, crucially, secures our base and our national security interests and those of our allies on Diego Garcia.
Kate Osamor (Edmonton and Winchmore Hill) (Lab/Co-op)
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
Stephen Doughty
I simply refer the right hon. Gentleman to the answers we have given previously on this issue. There is strong support from across the US national security apparatus—from the State Department, from the White House and from the Pentagon. We are convinced that this is a deal that has protections in it to protect our national security and that of our allies, most importantly the United States.
Mr Paul Foster (South Ribble) (Lab)
Stephen Doughty
My hon. Friend is absolutely right about our historical role and responsibilities in relation to Kosovo. KFOR makes a vital contribution to maintaining a safe and secure environment in Kosovo, and of course UK troops play a key part in that. We engage very closely with our partners in Kosovo and across the region, and continue to urge Serbia and Kosovo to engage constructively in the EU-facilitated dialogue. In recent months, I have spoken to both Prime Minister Kurti and Foreign Minister Đurić of Serbia.
Mr Paul Kohler (Wimbledon) (LD)
Sir Oliver Dowden (Hertsmere) (Con)
The Minister keeps telling the House that negotiations with Mauritius have been going on for two years. Will he explain to the House why he is so reluctant to extend those negotiations by just one week until the Trump Administration take office? They may take a very different view of the negotiations from that of the Biden Administration.
Stephen Doughty
I simply refer the right hon. Gentleman to the answers I have given repeatedly. This deal is in the interests of the United Kingdom and in the interests of the United States, and it has been supported by all parts of the United States Administration. There is no rush. There are ongoing discussions, but we are not going to give a running commentary.
Douglas McAllister (West Dunbartonshire) (Lab)
My constituent Jagtar Singh Johal has been in arbitrary detention in India for more than seven years. The Secretary of State and his ministerial team have been extremely generous with their time and assistance to help resolve the situation, but can I seek the Minister’s assurance that those efforts are ongoing?
Stephen Gethins (Arbroath and Broughty Ferry) (SNP)
I welcome the Minister’s earlier comment that the future of Greenland is a matter for the people of Greenland, but will he commit in the way that France and Germany have to defending Greenland’s territorial integrity against any hostile action?
Stephen Doughty
I met the Foreign Minister of Greenland yesterday, which was the second time I have met her in the past four months. We discussed a range of issues, including security in the Arctic, our partnership, our trade partnership and our close engagement on a number of matters, including climate change, science and other areas. Our partnership with Greenland is strong, as is our partnership with Denmark. I refer the hon. Member to the comments I made on Greenland’s future, which is a matter for the people of Greenland and the people of the Kingdom of Denmark.
Brian Leishman (Alloa and Grangemouth) (Lab)
We have millions shoehorned into a confined prison, hundreds of communities destroyed, thousands of people indiscriminately killed and lifesaving humanitarian aid being blocked. Will the Foreign Secretary show consistency, judge Israel on its actions and at last define what Netanyahu’s apartheid regime is doing to Palestinians as a genocide?
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
Do the Government deny that incoming President Trump is deeply hostile to the proposed Chagos Islands giveaway?
Stephen Doughty
The right hon. Gentleman will understand that we have support across the United States Administration, including from the Pentagon, the State Department, the agencies and the White House. We are confident that as the details of the deal are provided in the proper way—one Administration at a time, as he well knows—the new Administration will recognise that this important deal protects our security and that of the United States, as well as the unimpeded operation of the base on Diego Garcia, which has been our primary objective throughout this process.
UK and Overseas Territories Joint Ministerial Council 2024
Stephen Doughty Excerpts(1 week, 6 days ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Stephen Doughty)
The 12th UK-Overseas Territories Joint Ministerial Council was held from 19 to 21 November 2024 in London. The council was attended by elected leaders and representatives from Anguilla, Ascension Island, Bermuda, the British Virgin Islands, the Cayman Islands, the Falkland Islands, Gibraltar, Montserrat, the Pitcairn Islands, St Helena, the sovereign base areas of Akrotiri and Dhekelia, Tristan da Cunha and the Turks and Caicos Islands.
The overseas territories are an invaluable part of the British family. The UK has a responsibility to ensure security and good governance of the overseas territories and their peoples.
The JMC is the highest forum for political dialogue and consultation between the elected leaders of the overseas territories and UK Ministers. We met under the strapline of “Listen, Transform, Deliver—Together”. This reflects the UK’s desire to build closer relationships, based on mutual respect and inclusion, and to transform the UK’s relationship with the overseas territories for us both to deliver greater security and prosperity.
In my capacity as Minister for the Overseas Territories, I chaired the council. Other ministerial colleagues who attended the discussions included the Home Office Minister (Lord Hanson); the Minister for the Armed Forces, my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard); the Minister for Climate, my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy); the Minister for Public Health and Prevention, my hon. Friend the Member for Gorton and Denton (Andrew Gwynne); and the Minister for Early Education, my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth South (Stephen Morgan). Representatives from UK Export Finance and the Joint Maritime Security Centre also joined us. His Majesty the King also spent time meeting with representatives of the OTs at the annual reception for the diplomatic corps at Buckingham Palace.
The key themes of discussion at this year’s council were: resetting the relationship between the UK and the overseas territories; security and irregular migration; economic diversification and resilience; tackling illicit finance; environment and climate change; overseas development assistance; and breaking down barriers to opportunity for citizens. Discussions were positive and constructive, reflecting a shared desire to transform the relationship.
The elected leaders of the overseas territories warmly welcomed the five principles I set out to guide the UK’s relationship with the elected Governments of the overseas territories:
devolution and democratic autonomy for the overseas territories;
listening to the overseas territories, following the principle of “nothing about you without you”;
partnership with the overseas territories based on mutual respect and inclusion—rights come with responsibilities;
good governance and ensuring proper democratic accountability and regulation; and,
defending the overseas territories’ security, autonomy and rights, including the right of self-determination.
The council agreed priorities and set out commitments and areas for joint work in the year ahead. Representatives welcomed that each UK Government Department has an assigned Minister with responsibility for the overseas territories. I convene and chair this group to ensure mission-driven focus on the overseas territories. Representatives welcomed the extension of access to the Leadership College for Government for permanent secretaries (or equivalents) of the overseas territories. This will build expertise and help develop senior peer relationships between the overseas territories and the UK.
We discussed the complex and varied security and irregular migration challenges of the overseas territories. The UK and the overseas territories’ Governments expressed their solidarity with the Government and people of the Turks and Caicos Islands in respect of the security challenges they currently face and committed to working together across the British family to assist where possible.
We discussed the vital role of the overseas territories’ stewardship of internationally important and unique environments and ecosystems, including protecting 94% of unique British biodiversity. Representatives welcomed the commitment of the Foreign Secretary that climate and nature crisis will be central to the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office’s work, which builds on the Prime Minister’s commitment that climate and nature will be at the centre of the cross-UK Government missions.
We discussed economic growth. We resolved to promote and encourage trade and investment as key engines of prosperity.
Tackling illicit finance across the UK, OTs and Crown dependencies is a Government priority. We agreed to work in partnership on this important agenda. I emphasised the importance of implementing publicly accessible registers for beneficial ownership (PARBOs). The UK also set out the ambition for this becoming the global norm and the expectation that the OTs would implement registers that are fully accessible to the public. Montserrat has joined Gibraltar in implementing a public register and commitments were made by St Helena—which passed legislation earlier this month—and the Falkland Islands to implement these by April 2025. Anguilla, Bermuda, the British Virgin Islands, the Cayman Islands and the Turks and Caicos Islands will have legislation on legitimate interest access registers of beneficial ownership approved through their respective legislatures by April 2025, with implementation by June 2025 or earlier. The Prime Minister and Foreign Secretary attended the closing session of the council, underscoring their determination to reset the relationship with the overseas territories.
We agreed a joint communiqué, which was issued following the conclusion of the council and published on the gov.uk website.
[HCWS356]
Frozen Russian Assets: Ukraine
Stephen Doughty Excerpts(2 weeks, 1 day ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Stephen Doughty)
I thank the hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells (Mike Martin) and other colleagues across the House for tabling this important debate. He made a powerful speech, starting out with the horrific story of Sasha. It made me think not only of similar stories I have heard directly, but of the work done in communities throughout the UK in maintaining Ukrainian culture and heritage—the very culture, heritage and language that Putin is trying to erase from the lives of those children. I visited the centre in my constituency in Cardiff just a few weeks before Christmas.
I am grateful to all right hon. and hon. Members for their contributions and their challenge. They have made some important points and they can be assured that I have listened to them all carefully. It is important to emphasise that we have again seen absolute unity in this House in our desire to support Ukraine in its fight and that Russia must pay. Those are the two key messages coming out of the debate for me.
As all of us in the Chamber know well, Russia’s assault on Ukraine is an unprovoked, premeditated and barbaric attack against a sovereign democratic state. As the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Grantham and Bourne (Gareth Davies) said, the Christmas day attacks reinforced the shocking and barbaric nature of what Russia is doing. The UK and our international partners stand united. We cannot let aggressors like Putin succeed.
I will attempt to respond to many of the points that have been made, which have all been important, but I will start by underlining the magnitude of the UK’s response to Putin’s invasion. We have sanctioned more than 2,100 individuals and entities. We have frozen more than £22 billion-worth of private assets under the Russia sanctions regime. The shadow Minister asked for some allocation by type, and I will certainly try to write to him with further detail on that.
Alongside G7 partners, we have immobilised Russian state assets in our jurisdiction, too. We have led international shipping sanctions that have disrupted the Russian shadow fleet, leaving oil tankers idling across the globe unable to continue their trade. We have ramped up action since July to include a further 89 tankers, barring them from our ports and denying them access to maritime services. We have also sanctioned nine vessels involved in the shipping of liquefied natural gas from Russia, which has contributed to Russia’s largest producer suspending production.
All that is alongside measures targeting firms supplying Russia’s military industrial complex, including Chinese companies sending components for drones. We have sanctioned cyber-criminals and mercenaries seeking to destabilise African countries, not to mention Russian troops for the appalling use of chemical weapons on the battlefield. These carefully constructed and wide-ranging packages are having a significant impact on Putin’s ability to finance his war, eroding Russian oil revenues and supporting Ukraine on the battlefield.
There was a lot of talk about war economics from my hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough (Dr Sandher), but the fact is that Russia is paying many times more for components that are often of poorer quality and in much lower quantities than it needs. By disrupting the Russian oil industry, we are putting further pressure on the Kremlin. It has all contributed to a Russian economy that is in trouble, with inflation at close to 10%, interest rates at 21% and the rouble in decline. Putin has told his population not to panic, but disagreements between officials and industrialists are increasingly vocal, and that should serve as a reminder not only to Putin but to the wider world that there is a high price to pay for assaulting the democracy, sovereignty and territorial integrity of another nation.
Many questions have rightly been asked about enforcement. Since coming into office I have been clear, as has the Foreign Secretary, that we must have the necessary powers and tools to implement and enforce our sanctions regimes effectively. Strengthening the system is a top priority for this Government and, with the support of ministerial colleagues, I have launched a cross-Government review to examine how we can make it easier for businesses to comply with sanctions, but also bring the full force of the law to bear on those who do not. We are working across Government Departments on that.
We have introduced new powers for the Office of Trade Sanctions Implementation and for the Department for Transport. In September last year, the Financial Conduct Authority fined Starling bank almost £29 million in relation to its financial sanctions controls and screening. Last month, the National Crime Agency disrupted multibillion-dollar Russian money laundering networks with links to drugs, ransomware and espionage, resulting in 84 arrests. It also seized more than £20 million in cash and cryptocurrency.
The Foreign Secretary, who was rightly referenced in the debate, has launched an important campaign on tackling illicit finance and kleptocracy, including by dealing with those who enable them. We have made it clear that we will not hesitate to do what is necessary to clamp down on those who seek to evade our sanctions.
We want to ensure that Ukraine emerges from the war with a modernised and inclusive economy that is resilient to Russian threats. That is as important as providing it with the crucial military support that it needs. We will therefore continue to work across a range of donor platforms to leverage private investments such as those at the Ukraine recovery conference with the work of UK Export Finance and British International Investment.
We have committed £12.8 billion in military, humanitarian and economic support to Ukraine. As was rightly referenced, we have often been the first mover when it has come to vital lethal assistance, whether in respect of Storm Shadow missiles, Challenger 2 tanks or, of course, the NLAWs at the start of the war. We have also recommitted to £3 billion a year for as long as it takes and signed a long-term bilateral security co-operation agreement—we were the first of 25 countries to do so.
As was rightly referenced, the Chancellor has further announced that we will provide £2.26 billion of additional support to Ukraine as part of the G7 extraordinary revenue acceleration loans to Ukraine scheme. I thank hon. Members across the House for ensuring the speedy passage of the legislation, which passed its Third Reading unanimously, to put that in place. Crucially, those funds will be repaid not by Ukraine but by the extraordinary profits made on sanctioned Russian state assets held in the European Union.
The fundamental questions about what more we can do to use Russian assets for the benefit of Ukraine were at the heart of the debate. The Government and our G7 partners have repeatedly affirmed our position. Russia’s obligations under international law are clear: it must pay for the damage it has caused to Ukraine. The ERA loan and our contribution will ensure that Ukraine can receive the financial support that it needs now—it was right to focus on getting that out the door, because we urgently need to support Ukraine now—with the profits generated on sanctioned Russian sovereign assets providing that. I reassure colleagues throughout the House who have rightly asked a lot of searching and challenging questions that we are committed to considering all possible lawful avenues by which Russia can be made to meet its obligation to pay for the damage it is causing to Ukraine. We continue to work with allies to that end.
I confirm that I spoke to Foreign Ministers from across Europe on that and other crucial aspects of our support for Ukraine just before the House rose in December. We will continue to update Parliament on the progress of that work. However, I hope hon. Members will understand that it would not be appropriate to provide a running commentary on discussions, as allies have committed to keeping those private, including in respect of the specific sums of Russian sovereign assets that are currently frozen.
Sir Julian Lewis
I absolutely accept what the Minister says. Does he appreciate that with the possibility of President Trump withdrawing some, if not all, American aid to Ukraine, the substitution of a substantial volume of financial support will become essential? That is one reason behind our concern about the assets possibly being seized.
Stephen Doughty
We are all concerned to get Ukraine the support that it needs, and as quickly as possible. It is wrong to speculate on what the future Administration might choose to do. Let us remember that the package came through from the United States with strong bipartisan support, and much of the support to Ukraine even before the 2022 invasion came from the first Trump Administration. Let us be clear that there is support there and that there is unity across the Atlantic on support for Ukraine.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith
President Trump has already said that he will continue with the payments and support. May I ask a simple question? We know from the Financial Assistance to Ukraine Bill that recently passed through the House that using the profits of assets will help to bring up to $50 billion of support to Ukraine. A previous legal commitment has been broken, which could not have been done before without prior legislation; assets have never been separated from profits. The Minister does not have to answer the question now, but will he go back to the Foreign Office with a reminder that the assets are now left available for seizure?
Stephen Doughty
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his comments and hope that he will write me the letter that he promised in the debate. I will read it with great interest. He is extremely well informed on these matters and he knows that I have taken a keen interest in them over some time. As I said, we will consider all lawful measures that we can possibly take to ensure that Ukraine gets the support it needs. I will listen closely to his advice and, indeed, that of many others. He would not expect me to comment on any legal advice or technical advice under consideration.
I am conscious of the time and the need to move to the next debate, but I genuinely want to thank all right hon. and hon. Members. Hugely important points were made. It is clear that there is unity in the House that we all want to get Ukraine the support that it needs, and to get that there as quickly as possible. I am convinced that we are doing everything we can on both sides of the equation—choking off Russia’s ability to fund its war machine on the war economics side, which was mentioned, as well as getting Ukraine the support that it needs. We will continue to do that.
Our support is ironclad, and we have made that clear to President Zelensky. I was with Foreign Minister Sybiha a number of times before Christmas, and he is absolutely clear that the UK’s support is critical and that it must continue. We are glad to give him confirmation of our resolute support.
Commonwealth Parliamentary Association and International Committee of the Red Cross (Status) Bill [Lords]
Stephen Doughty ExcerptsWednesday 18th December 2024
(1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Commonwealth Parliamentary Association and International Committee of the Red Cross (Status) Act 2025 View all Commonwealth Parliamentary Association and International Committee of the Red Cross (Status) Act 2025 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 13 November 2024 - (13 Nov 2024)
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Stephen Doughty)
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
It is a particular pleasure to follow the swift passage of that important Bill on financial assistance to Ukraine. It was also a particular pleasure to join the Ukrainian Foreign Minister twice in the last two weeks and to assure him of our continued support at this time, especially as we approach the Christmas season, but also, crucially, to assure him that we will continue our financial commitments and that there is unity across the House and, indeed, the country.
This too is an important Bill, on which there is again a huge amount of unity across the House. I hope that it will not detain us long. I pay tribute to all Members for their co-operation in getting the Bill this far so quickly in the new Parliament and under this new Government. It is a rare occasion when the House finds itself in such agreement, but the Bill has continued to receive unwavering support from Members in all parts of the House. That is a true testament to the importance that Members ascribe not only to the aims of the Bill, but to the aims and values of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association and the International Committee of the Red Cross.
Matt Rodda (Reading Central) (Lab)
I strongly endorse the sentiments that the Minister has expressed. May I offer my thanks and support to the CPA, which recently staged an excellent visit to Reading on behalf of the Barbadian Parliament? It was a wonderful experience, which was interesting and supportive both for me as a parliamentarian and for my colleagues from Barbados. It helped the Barbadian community in Reading to build and develop vital links. Our town once had the largest concentration of Barbadians outside Barbados itself, and there is a strong heritage there. The visit was much appreciated, and I wholeheartedly support the CPA and thank it for its work.
Stephen Doughty
I thank my hon. Friend for his comments, which underline the importance that we ascribe to our relationships with our Commonwealth partners as parliamentarians and, of course, as a Government. As my hon. Friend will know, the Foreign Secretary made his own visit to the Caribbean just last week. Those ties are hugely important, and it is important that we maintain them in the House as well.
This is a significant moment for both organisations. The CPA has been seeking this change in its legal status for more than 20 years, and the ICRC has been doing so for over a decade. We are now finally able to deliver that. The passing of the Bill will ensure that the CPA’s headquarters remain in the UK, and its treatment as an international organisation will allow it to continue to operate fully across the Commonwealth and international fora. It will also allow the CPA to participate fully in areas where it is currently restricted.
As I have said, we ascribe great importance to our membership of the Commonwealth, a vibrant global network of 2.5 billion people united in the pursuit of freedom, peace and prosperity. In October this year, Samoa hosted the first Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting in a Pacific island country. It was His Majesty the King’s first CHOGM as head of the Commonwealth, and there was a strong Government attendance. I was especially delighted that the representative of the UK overseas territories was present—the current president of the UK Overseas Territories Association and Premier of the Cayman Islands. This is the crucial context within which the CPA operates, and it is crucial that we secure status change so that it can continue its work in promoting democracy and good governance across the Commonwealth. Having participated in its work in the past, with both incoming and outgoing delegations—I think fondly of my visit to Ghana a few years ago, working with Commonwealth parliamentarians from across Africa—I have seen that work at first hand.
Throughout the Bill’s passage, Members have been vocal about the crucial role the ICRC plays in conflicts to protect civilian lives. It has a unique mandate under the Geneva conventions to provide humanitarian assistance to people affected by armed conflict and other situations of violence and to promote the laws that protect victims of war, and it works globally to promote international humanitarian law. It also has a unique legitimacy to engage with all parties to conflicts, and has unparallelled access to provide protection and assistance to vulnerable groups in conflicts around the world. It is therefore critical that it can operate in the UK in accordance with its international mandate, maintaining its strict adherence to the principles of neutrality, impartiality and independence and its working method of confidentiality. I know from our previous debates that Members are in agreement on why the Bill is so important in enshrining those principles.
We will continue to work with both the CPA and the ICRC to agree the written arrangements that will set out the parameters of the status change, as well as the privileges and immunities that the Government have decided to confer on both organisations. Those arrangements will be specified in Orders in Council, which will be brought to the House to be debated and voted on before being implemented.
As Members are aware, this is not the first time the House has considered the Bill. It was first a private Member’s Bill that was introduced in the last Session by the former Member for Basingstoke, and I pay tribute to her for her efforts in pushing it forward. I also want to put on the record my gratitude to the team of FCDO officials and lawyers who have worked tirelessly to ensure the Bill’s readiness and provided support to various Ministers throughout its passage. I thank my noble Friends in the other place, Lord Collins and Baroness Chapman, for their work in ensuring the Bill’s smooth passage. I also express my thanks and appreciation to the drafters in the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel for preparing the Bill, and to the House authorities for all their work behind the scenes.
Given that this is likely to be my last outing before the festive season, I want to wish a very happy Christmas to Members of the House—Nadolig llawen—and I wish everybody a successful festive season. I am delighted that we will get this Bill to its conclusion imminently.
Stephen Doughty
I did not intend to speak again, but with the leave of the House, I will respond to some of the important questions that were raised.
It is good to see the hon. Member for Esher and Walton (Monica Harding), who asked important questions about the terrible situation for the hostages held by Hamas. We want to see those hostages released. The ICRC has called for the immediate release of the hostages and for access to them, it continues to request information on the hostages and their current health conditions, and it continues to try to get access to the hostages as part of its mandated role to assess their welfare, pass messages to family and provide medical and other support. However, for that to happen, all parties to the conflict need to reach agreement, and the ICRC has no means to compel them to do so. We understand that the ICRC continues to meet representatives of the families—as do the Government. We all want to see the hostages brought home.
The hon. Lady also raised the important matter of funding for the ICRC. In 2023, the funding was £133 million, including £52 million core unrestricted funding. However, in 2024, the UK is on track to provide over £165 million to the ICRC. The current spending review is under way, so the total amount for 2025 and beyond is not confirmed, but our intention is to continue structuring future funding within a new multi-year business case, to give the ICRC the predictability of income that it needs to plan ahead for its crucial international humanitarian law and protection programme around the world, to which many Members have referred.
I join the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis) in congratulating Lord Beamish on his new role. I noted carefully the points that the right hon. Member made, and I have no doubt that he will continue to pursue them in the way he does.
I thank all Members who have contributed to Third Reading and the other debates on the Bill, including my hon. Friends the Members for Southgate and Wood Green (Bambos Charalambous) and for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Adam Jogee), and the right hon. Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale (David Mundell). I join the right hon. Member in thanking Stephen Twigg for his excellent work, particularly in relation to the CPA. I am glad that there has been agreement across the House on these issues. I commend the Bill to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed, with amendments.
British Indian Ocean Territory: Sovereignty
Stephen Doughty Excerpts(1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Priti Patel (Witham) (Con)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs if he will provide an update on the negotiations between His Majesty’s Government and the Government of Mauritius over 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. We welcome yesterday’s reiteration by Prime Minister Ramgoolam of his willingness to conclude a deal with the UK. We are confident that the agreement is in both sides’ shared interests, and we will continue working with the new Mauritian Government to finalise the deal. Prime Minister Ramgoolam’s comments follow his commitment to completing the negotiations, following his election, in an exchange of letters with the Prime Minister.
As part of the usual Government-to-Government engagement, the Prime Minister’s BIOT envoy, Jonathan Powell, met PM Ramgoolam in late November to start the process, and that was followed last week by a visit to Mauritius by the UK’s chief negotiator Harriet Mathews and other officials for the talks. Those talks were productive, and it is completely understandable that the new Mauritian Government will want time to study the details.
It would not be appropriate or usual for me to give a running commentary on what was discussed during routine and private engagements, nor on any potential future engagements. I am confident, however, that we have agreed a good and fair deal that is in both sides’ interests. It protects the base at proportionate cost; it has been supported across the national security architecture in the United States and by India for those very reasons. As I have said a number of times in this House, the treaty will contain clear commitments on robust security arrangements, including preventing the presence of foreign security forces on the outer islands and ensuring the base can continue to operate securely and effectively.
The agreement is subject to finalising a treaty. Following signature, the Government will bring forward a Bill to enable implementation of that treaty. Both Houses of Parliament will have the opportunity to scrutinise that treaty before ratification.
Priti Patel
Thank you for granting this urgent question, Mr Speaker. Once again Ministers have been reluctantly dragged to the House—in fact, I have just seen the Foreign Secretary leg it. In a world of increasing danger, change and uncertainty, why are they so keen to surrender this strategic asset? We have been repeatedly told by Ministers that this is a good deal and that it has the support of the national security apparatus—we keep hearing that, but where is the evidence to justify those hollow claims?
If the deal is so good, why have the Government been so secretive about the details? Can the Minister explain? I am sorry that the Foreign Secretary has abandoned the House and not even come to this statement, because yet again we are responding to media reports. Can the Minister confirm that we will be able to extend the lease on the military base after 99 years, as reported? Will we and the US still have full autonomy of operations? What safeguards will be in place to stop other countries, including China, trying to establish themselves on the base or near the military base on Diego Garcia? How much is the British taxpayer going to be liable for each year and in total over 99 years, now that we know we will be paying for the privilege of giving away these islands? What exactly is our money going to be paying for?
The Government claim that they cannot disclose information about the lease, but surely the Minister can at least say—explain and be honest—where on earth the budget is coming from. If it is accounted for in the Budget forecast presented in the autumn—we all heard about those Budget forecasts recently—will the Minister tell us what the funding will be for the economic partnership and the trust fund for Chagossian people? Can the Minister also tell us what aspects of the deal the new Mauritian Government want reconsidering in the response? What consideration is being given to provide more funding or to weaken any protections that may be in this lease? Importantly, can he explain why the views of the Chagossian community have been so ignored?
When the whole world can see that this proposed deal was falling apart, the Foreign Secretary and this Government have tried to flog it constantly. Not only is this a monumental failure of statecraft from this Labour Government, but it is also a significant humiliation for the Foreign Secretary and his credibility and for the Prime Minister. Why are Labour putting our security at risk, ignoring Chagossians, and letting our standing go into freefall in this world?
Mr Speaker
I remind Members that these contributions should take no longer than two minutes.
Stephen Doughty
We are absolutely not damaging our security; we are protecting it through this deal, and that is why this deal has been agreed—to protect the operation of that base; to protect it against the legal uncertainty; and to ensure it is on a safe footing well into the next century.
The right hon. Lady constantly refers to our somehow giving up the base on Diego Garcia, but the deal does exactly the opposite—[Interruption.] It protects the base on Diego Garcia. [Interruption.] It protects the base to continue operating—[Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. Mr Gemmell, we had enough all the way through Prime Minister’s questions. If I hear any more, you are out. I seriously mean that; I am not putting up with it.
Stephen Doughty
The right hon. Lady constantly talks as if somehow we are giving up the base on Diego Garcia. That is the exact opposite of what this deal does—unlike the failure to secure the deal under the last Administration, which I might remind the House went through 11 rounds of negotiations yet failed to secure a deal to protect our base. This deal protects the base.
The right hon. Lady asked a series of other questions. She asked whether we would be able to extend the lease, and the answer is yes. Would we continue to have autonomy for our operations and those of our allies? Absolutely, yes. Are there safeguards in place to prevent foreign forces or others on the outer islands? Absolutely, yes.
I have answered the questions on costs a number of times in the House. We are very clear that it is not normal practice for the United Kingdom to confirm the value of its payments for military bases anywhere across the globe. We have not done that in the case of any other base, such as the one in Oman, and the United States itself has not confirmed the value of its direct payments for bases, including in Djibouti and the Marshall Islands.
The right hon. Lady spoke about the Chagossians and, having engaged with Chagossian communities over many years, I am confident that this deal has clear benefits for Chagossian communities and will allow the resettlement of the outer islands and the restarting of visits. She also mentioned the trust fund.
The right hon. Lady referred to media reports, and there is a huge amount of speculation. Let us get back to the actual facts. The Mauritian Prime Minister himself has confirmed to his Assembly that he is willing to conclude this deal with the United Kingdom. Those are the facts, and we will protect our national security and our interests.
Peter Lamb (Crawley) (Lab)
Under the Mauritian criminal code, anyone who questions the integrity of Mauritian territories, including the Chagos archipelago, is potentially subject to 10 years’ imprisonment. Most British Chagossians have, at one time or another, effectively given that level of disconsideration to the Mauritian Government. What conversations has the Minister had with the Mauritian Government to ensure that this part of the code is removed so that it is possible for British Chagossians to visit Chagos, in the event that the deal goes through?
Stephen Doughty
As I said, we take the interests of Chagossian communities incredibly seriously. The deal provides for Chagossians to return to the outer islands and to resettle them if Mauritius decides to pursue a programme of resettlement. Most importantly, we will get on with getting those visits going so that they can go back and visit the islands, including Diego Garcia, with the appropriate protections in place.
Calum Miller (Bicester and Woodstock) (LD)
The Foreign Secretary told this House on 7 October that his deal is in the UK’s “security interests”. The chaos we have seen since then does nothing to assure our allies or to repel our enemies. In retrospect, does the Minister think it was wise to announce an agreement just weeks before elections in Mauritius and the US? Does he agree it would be wise for any future agreement to come before this House for scrutiny and a vote before signature?
It is important that any agreement complies with the opinion of the International Court of Justice, but self-determination remains an important principle, too. Now that negotiations have reopened, can the Minister say how the Chagossian people will be represented in those talks?
A court ruled this week that Tamil asylum seekers were illegally detained, in terrible conditions, on Diego Garcia. Will the Minister apologise for their treatment and assure the House that the camp in which they were held is now closed for good?
Stephen Doughty
As I have repeatedly said in this House, the interests of the Chagossians have been absolutely at the heart of this deal, and I am sure they will be confident that there are a number of provisions that will satisfy the concerns that Members are raising in good faith, and that Chagossians have raised with me directly. This was a treaty negotiation between the United Kingdom and Mauritius. The hon. Gentleman is aware of the ICJ judgment, and I will let him read that in his own time.
The hon. Gentleman specifically asks about the situation of the migrants, and we recognise and are carefully considering this week’s judgment, but I make it clear that this Government inherited a deeply troubling situation that remained unresolved under the last Administration, four years after the migrants’ arrival on Diego Garcia. I believe that the shadow Foreign Secretary was Home Secretary when the migrants first arrived, and the situation went unresolved. We were absolutely clear that the situation was unsustainable, and we worked at pace to resolve it. We will carefully consider the judgment of that court.
Derek Twigg (Widnes and Halewood) (Lab)
Those of us who have spoken to the American military know the importance of this base. Will the Minister confirm that he said that, since the agreement was announced, the American military and security services have raised no concerns with this Government?
Stephen Doughty
Yes, indeed. As far as I am aware, that is the case. In fact, the opposite is true. There has been a warm welcome for this agreement from across the United States security apparatus because it puts this base and our shared operations on a secure footing into the future. I remind the House again that that is the very reason why this Government acted and, indeed, why the previous Foreign Secretary started the process in the first place, so we are told.
Mr James Cleverly (Braintree) (Con)
Will the Minister answer this with a simple yes or no? Did the Prime Minister, the right hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer), have any conversations with Philippe Sands KC about Diego Garcia without the presence of Foreign Office or other Government civil servants? Yes or no?
Stephen Doughty
I do not have details of all the Prime Minister’s meetings. I am sure the right hon. Gentleman can ask the Prime Minister that question himself.
Mr Calvin Bailey (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab)
For those of us who have served for the US military, who retain genuine and close links with the US military, and who know that this issue does not bring about the concern that others are trying to conflate with it, will the Minister say what his view is on how it is seen by our US military friends?
Stephen Doughty
I praise my hon. Friend for his service and work. I am very clear: our allies in the United States and, indeed, our other allies who rely on the important guarantees that the base provides are supportive of the deal. It has been supported across the security apparatus at every level and that is absolutely crucial. We would not have signed up to a deal if it did not protect our interests and those of our closest ally.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
Can the Minister enlighten us as to the attitude on the deal of the incoming Trump Administration? Does he know, or shall I ask the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage)?
Stephen Doughty
We very much welcome, as I have said before, the election of President-elect Trump and Vice President-elect Vance. During the transition period, there are restrictions on what conversations can go on. As I have said repeatedly in the House, we are confident that when the full details of the deal are provided by the US national security apparatus, any concerns will be allayed.
Amanda Martin (Portsmouth North) (Lab)
I know that the Minister is a strong supporter of the overseas territories, as are the Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister. Despite this being documented already in the House and in Gibraltar, to avoid any doubt or further scaremongering, and for Members on the Opposition Benches, will the Minister once again confirm that this Government are completely committed to supporting the right of self-determination for the people of Gibraltar and the Falklands?
Stephen Doughty
I thank my hon. Friend for her important work on Gibraltar, as I thank you for yours, Mr Speaker. I have said this before and I will confirm again that we are absolutely and resolutely committed to the sovereignty and self-determination of Gibraltar and the Falkland Islands. Indeed, I enjoyed meeting our overseas territories family at the Joint Ministerial Council just a few weeks ago.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
It is truly baffling that such decent Ministers have allowed themselves to be bamboozled by the blob. Will the Minister confirm that this is not being rushed through in advance of the takeover of the White House by an incoming President in one month’s time? If, in one month’s time, that new President says that this is a terrible deal, will it be too late to change it?
Stephen Doughty
The right hon. Gentleman knows that I have immense respect for him and his work in this House. I take issue with his choice of words. We have incredible officials in this Government who have loyally served Governments from parties on both sides of this House. They work incredibly hard to defend the national security and interests of this country. If anything, this was not rushed at all: there were 11 rounds of negotiations under the Government of the right hon. Gentleman’s party. We got in and we got a deal done that protects our national security and our interests.
Phil Brickell (Bolton West) (Lab)
What assurances can the Minister provide Parliament about the scrutiny that the agreements, which will be struck in due course, will receive?
Stephen Doughty
As I have said a number of times in the House, the treaty, once signed, will go through the normal procedures in the House. I confirmed that in my answer to the right hon. Member for Witham (Priti Patel). There will be the opportunity for ample scrutiny by both Houses and legislation will be laid in due course.
Dave Doogan (Angus and Perthshire Glens) (SNP)
The Minister gets ahead of himself. He says the Government have moved at pace to resolve the situation; the situation is not resolved. He criticises the last Government for not securing a deal; his deal is not secured either. The last time we talked about this, we talked about the President-elect not being keen on the deal and the Chagossians not being properly consulted on it. When will he come back to the House on this situation and tell us something positive about this cack-handed deal?
Stephen Doughty
I have repeatedly stated a number of positive things, including the support for Chagossians that will be inherent in the deal. The positive fact is that after 11 rounds of failed negotiations under the previous Government, we achieved and have done a deal. We are confident that that deal will be supported by our partners and we will continue to present details of it in due course.
Steve Race (Exeter) (Lab)
Does the Minister agree that confirming the legal status of the base, which was left outstanding by the previous Government, will cement our role in the Indo-Pacific and provide an important pillar in our strategy to counter Chinese influence in the area?
Stephen Doughty
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Despite the attempts to constantly whip up the idea about Chinese influence, the deal contains specific precautions to prevent foreign forces. I remind the House again that Mauritius was one of the only countries that did not join the belt and road initiative. Its ally is India, not China.
Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)
The Government clearly want to dismantle legacies of empire. Why, then, do we think it is so important to attach the Chagos islands to Mauritius when, in fact, that link was only established when both territories were acquired by the French empire and later by the British empire? Why do we not listen to the Chagossians, instead of imposing the legacy of empire on them?
Stephen Doughty
I have engaged with many Chagossian groups. The hon. Member will know, as I have said multiple times, that there are a range of views across the Chagossian community. He is perfectly able to look at the legal judgments himself. The fact is that the Government wanted to secure the long-term operation of the base, our national security and our interests. We have engaged with our partners and secured a deal, which his Government failed to do.
Dan Carden (Liverpool Walton) (Lab)
The current situation is clearly unsustainable. Most of the negotiations took place under the previous Administration. It is now becoming a political football. Has the Minister heard any other serious recommendations for the future of the island?
Stephen Doughty
No, I have not, and I certainly have not heard them from the Opposition Benches.
Edward Morello (West Dorset) (LD)
I will repeat the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Bicester and Woodstock (Calum Miller), which the Minister studiously avoided. Clearly, the deal was not ready to be signed, so why was it announced two weeks before the election?
Stephen Doughty
When we are looking to protect the national security of this country, we will operate at the fastest and most appropriate pace that we can. This matter had been left languishing under the previous Administration, with the future of the base unsecure. We have secured it.
Tim Roca (Macclesfield) (Lab)
May I wish you a merry Christmas, Mr Speaker?
Does the Minister recognise that the issue is being raised by the Opposition again and again, despite the cognitive dissonance that it was they who opened the negotiations in the first place? I have to endorse the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth North (Amanda Martin) about the scaremongering and the irresponsible way in which the Opposition have conducted the debate with regard to other overseas territories and self-determination.
Mr Speaker
Order. I am a little bit concerned, as I granted the urgent question. I have taken a judgment call; I hope we are not questioning that.
Stephen Doughty
It is absolutely right that the House scrutinises these matters and it will continue to have the opportunity to do so in a range of forums; indeed, I will meet parliamentarians later today to discuss them. There appears to be collective amnesia among Conservative Members. I have raised this a number of times. Many of them served as Ministers in the previous Government and they knew exactly what the risks were to our national security.
Nigel Farage (Clacton) (Reform)
I have just returned, hotfoot, from a very full Mar-a-Lago. I spoke to several members—senior administrators, especially—of the incoming Administration, which will be in the White House in 32 days’ time. Let me assure you that there is very deep disquiet among them all as to what this deal may mean for the long-term future of Diego Garcia and whether such a deal will hold, given the precedent of the deal break over Hong Kong. They also cannot understand why we would surrender the sovereignty of the islands on an advisory judgment from a pretty obscure court. This is about sovereignty, and you keep saying yourself that the sovereignty—
Stephen Doughty
We have been very clear that these negotiations are between the United Kingdom and Mauritius, and I have set out in the past the reasons for that. The interests of the Chagossians are absolutely at the heart of this agreement, and as I have said, I have repeatedly engaged with them. The hon. Gentleman continues to speculate, but with the greatest of respect, he does not know the detail of what has been agreed. He does not know the detail of what has been shared. And he does not know the detail that the national security apparatus of the United States has considered. I am confident that his concerns will be allayed once he sees the detail of this deal.
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
Merry Christmas, Mr Speaker. The Minister says that views across the Chagossian community are mixed. In my experience, Mr Speaker, when politicians say that, they are simply choosing the views that they want to hear. Will the Minister take the opportunity that has been given by the incoming Mauritian Government to take a breathing space in which he can consult formally and in a structured way with the Chagossians to find out what they want?
Stephen Doughty
I have engaged with the Chagossian community twice in recent months, as I have made clear in answers to a number of parliamentary questions tabled by the right hon. Gentleman’s colleagues. The interest of the Chagossians will continue to be at the heart of this agreement, and I take their concerns very seriously. I am being quite honest, Mr Speaker, that there are a range of views: some oppose the deal; and some are in favour of it. That is completely natural in a democratic process.
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)
Thank you, Mr Speaker. Having been a member of the Chagos Islands (British Indian Ocean Territory) all-party parliamentary group ever since it was founded and had a lot of interaction with Chagossians over the past 25 years, I can assure the Minister that I have met many Chagossians in this country and in Mauritius. They were abominably treated and short-changed by the deal of 1968 and then later removed from the islands. Their one unifying cause is the right of return and settlement, and I hope the Minister will confirm that that right will be upheld. I understand all the negotiations surrounding the base, but there is no reason why they should not include the right of at least visiting, if not residing on, Diego Garcia itself.
The International Court of Justice was very clear that the decolonisation process was not properly carried out by Britain in the 1960s, when Mauritius achieved its independence, and that has to be made right. That has been voted on by the ICJ, voted on by the UN General Assembly, and endorsed by the Security Council. Is any more evidence necessary to indicate that it is clearly part of Mauritius, and that Chagossians have rights within Mauritius as well as on the Chagos Islands, where hopefully they will be able to return?
Stephen Doughty
I agree with the right hon. Member’s characterisation of what happened to the Chagossians in the past. It is a matter of deep regret for this Government, and, indeed, I think that regret is shared across the House. As I have said, we will have the interests of the Chagossians at the heart of this agreement. He is right to characterise the range of views across the Chagossian communities in response to the question that has just been put to me. I can confirm that the programme of visits will include the ability to visit all the islands, including Diego Garcia, with the appropriate safeguards in place. I hope, too, for a resettlement of the outer islands. A provision certainly exists for that to happen, and I think that that is one of the most likely scenario in which Chagossians can finally return to those outer islands.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
The Minister is trying to say that nothing has changed on this deal, yet media reports suggest that the new Prime Minister of Mauritius believes that the deal is not good enough, and the Minister is now saying that it is the same deal. Clearly, there is something that we are not being told in this House. Either the amount of money that we are paying for the rental of the space will have to increase, or some terms and conditions have changed. Thank you, Mr Speaker, for ensuring that this House can scrutinise the position. The Minister should have given a statement to that effect, rather than having to have an urgent question. Can we therefore pause this process to allow the Chagossians to have their say and to look at what the incoming American Government have to say, and then, before we proceed with this giveaway, make sure that everyone is in agreement?
Stephen Doughty
The Prime Minister of Mauritius has made it very clear in his exchange of letters with the Prime Minister of this country and also in his statement yesterday that they are willing to conclude an agreement with us. That is very clear. Therefore, on the fundamentals, nothing has changed. We are engaged in conversation. It is only natural that, after an election, they would want to do that and to be able to scrutinise the agreement. That is entirely proper. That is why officials have been having these conversations, but I will not give a running commentary on private discussions.
Sir Jeremy Wright (Kenilworth and Southam) (Con)
I know the Minister will want to give the House the greatest possible clarity on what has brought us to this point. The Foreign Secretary has been clear that one of the central considerations for the Government was the likelihood, if not the inevitability, of a binding legal judgment against the UK in this matter. The Minister will know that the judgments of the International Court of Justice are not binding on the United Kingdom when disputes are between the UK and another state which is or was a member of the Commonwealth. That would include Mauritius. I do not expect the Minister to disclose the legal advice that the Government have received, but will he please give the House some more clarity about the nature of the legal jeopardy that the Government perceive here?
Stephen Doughty
I will not, for that very reason, go into that type of advice. The right hon. and learned Member knows that from his extensive and distinguished experience on these matters. I have to ask this fundamental question: if there was not a problem, why did his Government start negotiations on this?
Dame Caroline Dinenage (Gosport) (Con)
I think we can forgive our overseas territories for being a little concerned about this Government’s commitment to their right to self-determination. Those of us who, like me, are a bit older and have long memories will remember when the previous Labour Government opened negotiations with the Spanish Government over the future of Gibraltar. But what I am more interested in today is having reassurance from the Minister that any decision will be well informed, so can he say which of his Ministers has visited the British Indian Ocean Territory?
Stephen Doughty
I like the right hon. Lady, but I have to say that I find it extremely unhelpful the way that the Falklands, Gibraltar and other overseas territories, which are not comparable with this situation, are constantly brought up. I have just been with the leaders at the Joint Ministerial Council—Mr Speaker, you graciously hosted a reception as well—and we were absolutely resolute in our commitment to the Falklands and Gibraltar. I have been there and said it myself directly on the Rock. The Minister of State for the Armed Forces has just been in the Falklands saying exactly the same thing to the Falkland Islanders. I can tell you, Mr Speaker, they are getting fed up with the nonsense that we are hearing about this. It is hugely problematic for their interests going forward.
David Mundell (Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale) (Con)
I refer Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. Surely the Minister must accept, though, that the timing of this announcement was one of the biggest diplomatic gaffes of modern times. It came literally hours before a general election was called. There was a widespread perception in Mauritius that this Government were trying to give a leg up to a very unpopular sitting Government who subsequently scored zero out of 60 directly elected seats in the Mauritian Parliament. Does he not agree that it is wholly appropriate that the new Labour Mauritian Government would be wary of the intentions of his Government?
Stephen Doughty
I simply do not recognise the right hon. Member’s characterisation.
Bradley Thomas (Bromsgrove) (Con)
Can the Minister update the House on the measures being taken to safeguard against the emergence of Chinese military and surveillance capabilities in the British Indian Ocean Territory?
Stephen Doughty
I have been very clear that, within the agreement, there are provisions to ensure the security of the outer islands. This deal would not have been agreed by the United States security apparatus or, indeed, by us were it to give that kind of benefit to another country. I have been very clear about the position of Mauritius in relation to China, and there are provisions and safeguards in place that should allay any fears on that matter.
Mike Wood (Kingswinford and South Staffordshire) (Con)
The Minister did not seem to answer the questions raised by the shadow Foreign Secretary, so may I ask this just one more time: from which budget do the Government plan to make the annual payments that he is proposing to the Mauritian Government?
Stephen Doughty
I have been very, very clear—[Laughter]. Conservative Members can guffaw all they like, but I will give the answers that relate to the facts here and that relate to the national security interests of this country. The previous Government were involved in 11 rounds of negotiations and they failed to achieve a deal. We achieved that deal. We will provide further details in due course.
Dr Neil Hudson (Epping Forest) (Con)
Yet again, this new Labour Government rushed into an ill-judged and regrettable policy decision: to cede the British Indian Ocean Territory to Mauritius, against expert advice and with no regard to the wishes of Chagossians in this country and elsewhere. It is like the Government’s awful policies on scrapping the winter fuel payment for pensioners, the heartless family farms tax, and their jobs tax. Will the Government show some leadership, admit that they have got this wrong, scrap the deal and keep this vital territory under British control, to protect UK interests, the marine environment and ultimately global security in an increasingly unstable and dangerous world?
Stephen Doughty
I gently suggest that the hon. Gentleman spends a bit more time reflecting on the failures of his Administration on this and a series of other issues, from the public finances to our national security. This Government are clearing up the mess that his party left behind on not only this issue but so many others.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Minister for his answers; however, I am a sponsor of the British Indian Ocean Territory (Citizenship) Bill, which calls for descendants born to individuals within the British Indian Ocean Territory to be able to register as BIOT. There is now an even greater imperative because of the Chagos decision, which was made with no input from local people. What discussions will take place with those who consider themselves British? The Chagossians seem not to be assured, so what will be done to ensure that they receive all the necessary information in a timely manner, and will not get answers to their questions through news media outlets?
Stephen Doughty
I have a deep respect for the hon. Gentleman. As I have said a number of times, the Government deeply regret the way that Chagossians were removed from the islands and treated thereafter. We have always been clear on respecting the interests of Chagossian communities. I have engaged, and will continue to engage, with Chagossian communities. Their interests are at the heart of the deal, from the trust fund to the ability to resettle on and visit the islands, and a series of other measures that we have taken here in the United Kingdom. I am confident that their interests are being respected.
UK Sanctions Regime
Stephen Doughty Excerpts(1 month ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Stephen Doughty)
Today I am updating the House on how this Government have delivered a step change in the use of our sanctions regimes to tackle malign activity and protect the UK’s national security interests domestically and internationally.
Sanctions are a powerful foreign and security policy tool, and this Government are committed to maximising their impact. Since the election, we have ramped up our collaboration with partners, particularly the US and the EU, to co-ordinate our action and to tackle circumvention.
UK sanctions are targeted, proportionate and robust, within a fair and transparent framework. Our approach has been repeatedly endorsed by the courts.
New sanctions to deter and disrupt malign actors
We have taken ambitious action to deploy new UK sanctions in innovative ways to deliver maximum impact. Since July, we have:
led the way in targeting Russia’s shadow fleet—the UK has targeted more ships than any other actor and has successfully encouraged partners to support our efforts;
delivered the largest single package of Russia sanctions, designed to disrupt Russia’s military industrial complex, since May 2023;
used our sanctions to deter and disrupt Iran’s military support to Russia;
called out the perpetrators of the Russian state’s forcible deportation of Ukrainian children;
clamped down on Russian cyber-criminals who have targeted UK schools and hospitals;
launched a cross-Government review of sanctions enforcement;
legislated to strengthen our sanctions enforcement powers, with the formal launch of the new Office of Trade Sanctions Implementation.
Russia sanctions
We have taken clear action to bear down on Russia’s sources of revenue, including energy revenues.
In July, the Prime Minister led a call to action at the European Political Community summit to tackle Russia’s shadow fleet. This has been endorsed by over 40 countries and by the EU. Russia has invested at least $10 billion into its shadow fleet and sanctions have plunged it into crisis. Since July, this Government have targeted 69 new oil tankers, nine liquefied natural gas carriers and six vessels involved in the transport of military goods. Many UK-sanctioned vessels have been left idling or at anchor, unable to continue their trade in Russian oil and depriving Russia of funds to wage its illegal war.
In November, we launched the largest package of sanctions against Russia in 18 months, disrupting the supply of western-sanctioned goods to the Russian military-industrial complex. This included individuals and entities in third countries. We are also targeting private military security companies, and, in November, the UK was the first G7 country to sanction Russian-backed mercenary group, Africa Corps.
The impact of our sanctions is clear. Sanctions have deprived Russia of over $400 billion since February 2022, reducing Putin’s war chest and forcing him to turn to North Korea and Iran for supplies.
Sanctions are putting grit in Russian military supply chains, increasing costs and delays and reducing equipment quality. The Russian defence sector has seen the cost of components rise by 30% and sanctions have prevented Russia from expanding military supplies to the battlefield.
On the financial side, 70% of Russian importers and 30% of Russian exporters now have to rely on specialised agents to settle payments with foreign partners, increasing the effective price of imports to Russia by 6% to 30%
The Russian Government have also had to undertake the first major tax hike in over 20 years. Interest rates are at 21%, there is runaway inflation, and the rouble has plummeted. Russia’s future energy ambitions are in tatters, and we are seeing increasingly vocal disagreements between Russian officials and industrialists.
Tackling corruption and illicit finance
Last month, we launched a campaign against illicit finance, raising our ambition and backing words with action. We sanctioned kleptocrats who have stashed stolen wealth in Britain and those who aid and abet them. Figures like Dmitry and Lada Firtash who have extracted hundreds of millions of pounds from Ukraine, or Isabel dos Santos who systematically abused her positions at Angolan state-run companies. On 9 December we took aim at the illicit gold trade, targeting five gold smugglers in co-ordination with the US, including three UK nationals. This Government will continue to use our sanctions powers to make the UK a more hostile environment for corrupt actors and to develop our sanctions regimes to address changing threats.
Iran
Sanctions are also important to confronting the threat posed by Iran, including its support for Russia. In September, we introduced new sanctions to disrupt Iran’s unmanned aerial vehicle and missile industries in response to Iran’s transfer of ballistic missiles to Russia for use against Ukraine. In October, following further Iranian attacks on Israel, we sanctioned senior Iranian military figures and organisations, including the Iranian Space Agency for their role in destabilising the middle east. This was followed in November by sanctions on Iran’s national airline, Iran Air, and its state-owned national shipping carrier, the Islamic Republic of Iran Shipping Lines, in line with the commitments outlined by the E3 in September. These sanctions will further restrict Iran’s direct scheduled commercial air services to and from the UK.
Cyber-sanctions
Our sanctions also directly support UK security. On 1 October, in co-ordination with international partners, we designated 16 individuals associated with Russia-based ransomware group Evil Corp, which has links to the Russian state and has sought to compromise UK health, Government and public sector institutions. This sends a clear message that the UK is prepared to stand up to cyber-threats.
Upholding human rights and promoting democracy
This Government have also taken sanctions action to uphold human rights. Following an unprecedented rise in settler violence in the west bank, we designated three settler outposts and four organisations that have supported, incited and promoted violence against Palestinian communities in the west bank.
We have also used sanctions to promote democracy. In September 2024, following Russia’s veto of the renewal of the UN sanctions regime on Mali, we legislated to enable the UK to sanction persons who obstruct Mali’s return to constitutional, civilian rule or who undermine the rule of law in Mali.
On 29 October, along with the EU and Canada, we also announced sanctions to increase pressure on the military regime in Myanmar and its associates. These sanctions target entities supplying aviation fuel and equipment to the Myanmar military and signal our clear opposition to the coup with the aim of undermining the regime’s credibility.
The UK strongly supports the use of UN sanctions to promote international peace and given the global signal they send and their reach across all 193 UN member states. On 8 November, the UN Security Council sanctioned two individuals involved in ethnically motivated atrocities in Sudan. This is part of wider efforts to apply pressure on conflict parties to stop fighting, allow humanitarian access and bring about a political transition as called for by the people of Sudan.
Co-ordination across the sanctions coalition
We co-ordinate with like-minded partners to disrupt, deter and respond to shared threats. We have repeatedly emphasised, alongside our G7 partners, that Russia must pay for the damage it has caused to Ukraine. On 22 October, the Chancellor announced that the UK will provide £2.26 billion in further support to Ukraine, as part of the G7 extraordinary revenue acceleration loans to Ukraine scheme. This is earmarked for military spending, further bolstering Ukraine’s ability to defend itself against Russia’s illegal war. The UK’s contribution will be repaid using the extraordinary profits generated on immobilised Russian sovereign assets held primarily in the EU.
Tackling Russia’s efforts to circumvent our sanctions remains a key strategic UK objective and a shared G7 commitment. Together with our G7 partners, particularly the US and EU, we continue to co-ordinate to tackle circumvention risks across priority countries in central Asia, the middle east, and the Caucasus. I have personally underscored the importance of tackling sanctions circumvention in my recent meetings with the Deputy Foreign Ministers of Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan and Kazakhstan. Diplomatic outreach at all levels has led to all these priority countries introducing Russia-facing controls on common high priority goods and a reduction in supply to Russia.
One-off engagement however is not enough. My officials, together with their EU and US counterparts, including during joint visits, are engaging with countries of concern and have secured commitments to control the re-export of the most sensitive goods, though we need to keep up the pressure. To underpin our commitment to tackling circumvention, the UK Government have deployed regional sanctions co-ordinators throughout our priority regions to provide leadership and expertise in our global network and to co-ordinate action across like-minded international partners in-country. We have complemented this with capacity-building programmes and technical assistance. The Prime Minister’s announcement last week highlights that approach in relation to the Republic of Cyprus as it establishes its new national sanctions implementation unit.
We are also playing a leading role in regional fora. The UK leadership in tackling the shadow fleet has seen our inclusion in the Nordic-Baltic forum alongside Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Germany, Iceland, Latvia, Lithuania, the Netherlands, Norway, Poland and Sweden. This forum is confronting the risks posed by the shadow fleet, especially in the environmentally sensitive waters of the Baltic sea and the North sea and is exploring new possibilities for common measures against the shadow fleet within the framework of international law.
Strengthening sanctions enforcement across Government
This Government continue to work with industry to maximise compliance with our sanctions, but we are clear that failures to comply should be met with the full force of the law. Punishments include seizures at the UK border and, for the most serious breaches, large fines or criminal prosecution.
A range of Departments have responsibility for the enforcement of UK sanctions, including the Home Office, Department for Business and Trade, Department for Transport and HM Treasury. In October, we introduced new sanctions enforcement powers for the Department for Business and Trade and the Department for Transport, including the power to impose civil monetary penalties for breaches of the UK’s aircraft, shipping and certain trade sanctions. These powers also introduced new reporting requirements for suspected breaches and give us the option to name and shame sanctions offenders. These powers underpinned the launch of the new Office of Trade Sanctions Implementation.
The creation of OTSI will strengthen the implementation and enforcement of the UK’s trade sanctions. OTSI will work in partnership with HMRC in enforcing trade sanctions and its focus will include the movement of goods and services across third country borders to Russia or other sanctioned destinations. These third country powers are an important expansion of our toolkit in tackling sanctions evasion and circumvention.
We are committed to doing what is necessary to clamp down on sanctions offenders and the introduction of additional capacity and powers is starting to pay off. We are seeing this in the increase in reporting of suspected breaches, which we expect will result in further fines and referrals for prosecution.
Since February 2022, HMRC has issued six compound settlements against UK companies that have breached the Russia sanctions regulations for a total of £1,363,129, including one in August 2023 for £1 million and the latest in August 2024 for just over £58,000. On 27 September 2024, the Financial Conduct Authority fined Starling Bank Ltd £28,959,426 for financial crime failings related to its financial sanctions controls and screening. In September 2024, following a proactive investigation, the Office of Financial Sanctions Implementation issued a monetary penalty of £15,000 to Integral Concierge Services for breaches of financial sanctions imposed on Russia in response to its illegal invasion of Ukraine in 2022. ICSL did not challenge the penalty and paid in full. I want to see many more enforcement actions in the coming months to maximise the deterrent effect of our sanctions and hold people and institutions accountable.
I plan to go further to strengthen the UK’s sanctions system, and I have launched a cross-Government review of sanctions enforcement with the support of Ministers from HM Treasury, the Department for Business and Trade, the Department for Transport and the Home Office. In parallel, I have been speaking to the leaders of the overseas territories, including at the recent Joint Ministerial Council, where we agreed on the importance of strengthening sanctions implementation and enforcement across the entire British family. We are matching our commitment with action, including providing direct support to enhance sanctions enforcement capability in our overseas territories.
I will use the review to consider where we can go further and deeper to improve our sanctions system. I want us to look at how we can make our sanctions easier to comply with, how we can build our cross-Government capabilities to combat sanctions circumvention and how we can expand and improve our sanctions toolkit. I look forward to substantially enhancing enforcement efforts and reporting the outcomes to Parliament.
[HCWS334]
Oral Answers to Questions
Stephen Doughty Excerpts(1 month, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
James MacCleary (Lewes) (LD)
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Stephen Doughty)
The Foreign Secretary attended the EU Foreign Affairs Council on 14 October. In the margins, he agreed with Josep Borrell, the EU High Representative for foreign affairs, to work towards a security partnership and committed to six-monthly foreign policy dialogues, starting in early 2025. Yesterday, I met Secretary-General Sannino of the European External Action Service to discuss, alongside ministerial colleagues, some of our vital shared interests, including Ukraine, hybrid threats and the western Balkans.
James MacCleary
President-elect Trump’s confirmation of tariffs on Canada, one of the US’s closest allies, raises serious concerns about his willingness to honour the US-UK special relationship. If that is the future of US relations with its closest partners, does the Minister agree that closer co-operation with the EU on defence and trade is now urgently needed, including access to the European customs union and the defence pact with the EU, going beyond the recent agreement with Germany?
Stephen Doughty
We have a thriving trading and investment relationship with the United States, with more than 1 million British citizens working for US firms, and vice versa. We look forward to working with President-elect Trump in office, including on his policy priorities and to improve our trading relations. Our need to work together in Europe on security issues is clear to all Members, whether that is the threat from Russia, the war in Ukraine, hybrid threats, the situation in Moldova or the situation in the western Balkans, and that is exactly what we are getting on with and doing.
Phil Brickell (Bolton West) (Lab)
I very much welcome the recent announcement of the UK-Germany bilateral defence agreement, which was signed at record-breaking pace by the new Government at Trinity House last month. It will bolster closer working with Europe’s largest economy on wider defence and security matters at a time of increasing Russian aggression across Europe. With that in mind, can the Minister therefore explain to the House how the Trinity House agreement fits into wider discussions with EU and NATO counterparts around defence and security?
Stephen Doughty
I thank my hon. Friend for his remarks on that important treaty work; I know he takes a keen interest in matters relating to UK-German relations. We continue to engage with German colleagues from across the spectrum. We are keen to get this treaty agreed as soon as possible. For me, it naturally fits with our NATO membership and the new enhanced dialogue we have with the EU on security and defence matters.
Steve Witherden (Montgomeryshire and Glyndŵr) (Lab)
Blair McDougall (East Renfrewshire) (Lab)
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Stephen Doughty)
Ahead of the elections on 11 October, I expressed my concerns directly to Foreign Minister Darchiashvili about pressure on civil society and stigmatisation of minorities ahead of the parliamentary elections. Following the elections, I publicly expressed support for the preliminary findings of the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe in relation to the election. I called on the Georgian authorities to investigate all irregularities and reverse their declining commitment to an inclusive and open democracy.
Blair McDougall
I thank the Minister for his actions. I draw the attention of the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests and to the work I have done in the past with democratic activists in Georgia. Those activists are terrified that Georgia is now at a turning point. Will the Minister join me in calling for new elections under international oversight and an end to the attacks on civil society groups, especially the heroic LGBT groups who are under attack there? If those things do not take place, will the Government keep open the option of sanctions on the individuals who are responsible for democratic backsliding in Georgia?
Stephen Doughty
I recognise my hon. Friend’s long-standing interest in this issue and his strong views on it. Let me be clear. On 28 October, His Majesty’s ambassador to Georgia called on the Central Election Commission to transparently investigate all alleged incidences of election fraud. Following the session of the new Parliament, the embassy again reiterated our concerns about election violations and the need for independent investigation. He is absolutely right that the right to peaceful protest and a free civil society is a key attribute of any modern European democracy and must be respected. We will continue to make that clear.
Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge) (Con)
I first pay tribute to the hon. Member for East Renfrewshire (Blair McDougall), whose focus on Georgia—not just on free elections in Georgia, but on the spread of Putin’s evil influence across Europe—has been incredibly important. What actions is the Minister taking to push back on Russia’s influence in the region and to push back in Russia itself using his budget for the BBC World Service to broadcast in sub-national languages inside Russia, so that the people of Russia know what is being done in their name and can understand what Putin is doing to them?
Stephen Doughty
The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to point to the important work the BBC World Service does in this area, in particular through its language services. I have in the past met its fantastic staff who do that important work. It is important that people have access to free, accurate and impartial information, including in their own languages. We have been clear about the extent of Russian interference in Georgia for a long time and we are clear about Russian interference across Europe in democracies. That is why we are working so closely with NATO and EU partners on that very issue.
Jerome Mayhew (Broadland and Fakenham) (Con)
James MacCleary (Lewes) (LD)
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Stephen Doughty)
My colleagues in the Cabinet Office, me, the Foreign Secretary and others are engaged in a number of conversations with our EU counterparts, but I will not give a running commentary. We will look at EU proposals on a range of issues, but there are no plans for a youth mobility scheme; neither will we return to freedom of movement.
Mike Tapp (Dover and Deal) (Lab)
Stephen Doughty
Our support is absolute and resolute. I am happy to meet the hon. Member to discuss these issues further. We will maintain our position.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
Will the Foreign Secretary take every opportunity to impress on the incoming President the importance of the article 5 guarantee, whereby the United States will come to the aid of any NATO country that is attacked? Will he impress on President Trump that we will do everything that we can to encourage other NATO allies to contribute more to the cost of defence?
Nick Timothy (West Suffolk) (Con)
It is ridiculous that Britain should even contemplate taking some of the 61 Sri Lankan asylum seekers on Diego Garcia as part of its agreement with Mauritius. There are serious concerns in Whitehall that some of those Sri Lankans have criminal records, and there are allegations that some of them may be involved in child abuse. I have raised this with the Home Office to no avail. Will Ministers in the Foreign Office make sure that all records are checked in Sri Lanka and in Diego Garcia to ensure that no such criminals or abusers are allowed into Britain?
Stephen Doughty
The Government inherited a situation in the British Indian Ocean Territory involving Tamil migrants from India and Sri Lanka who had arrived there. We are delivering a solution that protects migrants’ welfare but avoids opening a dangerous new migration route. The hon. Gentleman’s concerns regarding safeguarding and any other issues are absolutely at the heart of that and are being dealt with by Home Office and other ministerial colleagues.
Tracy Gilbert (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab)
My right hon. Friend will share my concern about the increasing number of women being given death sentences by the Iranian authorities. What urgent representations will he make to the Iranian Government to overturn those death sentences and ensure that women receive a fair trial?
Chagos Islands
Stephen Doughty Excerpts(2 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Nigel Farage (Clacton) (Reform)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs if he will make a statement on the transfer of sovereignty of the Chagos islands to Mauritius.
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Stephen Doughty)
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. Following two years of negotiation under three Prime Ministers, on 3 October the Government secured a deal that will protect the secure operation of the UK-US base on Diego Garcia well into the next century. The Government inherited a situation where that future was under threat. International courts were reaching judgments on the basis that Mauritius had sovereignty over the Chagos archipelago. International organisations were also taking steps not to undermine Mauritian sovereignty claims. That was not sustainable.
The base on Diego Garcia plays a critical role in countering an array of threats to regional and international security. Without legal certainty, the base simply cannot operate effectively. Continued uncertainty would be a gift to our adversaries. That is why the agreement has been welcomed by all parts of the US system, and other critical regional security partners, including India. Agreeing the deal now, on our terms, meant that we were able to secure strong protections that will allow the base to operate as it has done. We have secured a deal that protects our national interests, respects the interests of our partners and upholds the international rule of law. There will be clear commitments in the treaty to robust security arrangements, including arrangements preventing the presence of foreign security forces on the outer islands, so that the base can continue to operate securely and effectively. We would not have signed off on an agreement that compromised any of our security interests, or those of our allies.
The agreement will be underpinned by a financial settlement that is acceptable to both sides, and will underpin a strong, long-term partnership with Mauritius. That was crucial to securing the agreement. The Government will not scrimp on our national security; however, I am sure that the House will understand that it is not normal practice for the UK to reveal the value of payments for military bases anywhere across the globe, because to do so would put at risk their future secure operation.
The deal will also deliver benefits for the Chagossian community, who were removed from the islands in the 1960s and 1970s. I know that the whole House has already expressed, and will join me in again expressing, regret for that shameful episode. Mauritius will now be able to implement a programme of resettlement to the islands, other than Diego Garcia, and we will work together to start a programme of visits for Chagossians to all the islands. The UK will finance a new trust fund for Mauritius to support Chagossians, and will provide additional Government support to those living in the UK. All Chagossians will of course remain eligible for British citizenship and free to make their home in the UK.
We will work with Mauritius to ensure the continued protection of the islands’ unique environment, with the shared objective of securing and protecting one of the world’s most important marine environments. That will include the establishment of a Mauritius marine protected area. The agreement also shuts down the possibility of the Indian ocean being used as a dangerous illegal migration route to the UK, with Mauritius taking responsible for any future arrivals.
The long-term protection of the base on Diego Garcia has been the shared UK and US priority throughout. This agreement secures its future. We look forward to engaging with the incoming US Administration. I congratulate both President Trump and Dr Ramgoolam on their recent election victories in the US and Mauritius respectively, and we look forward to working with their Governments on this matter. The agreement is in all sides’ shared interests, and in our national security interest.
Nigel Farage
Mauritius has no legal or historical claim to sovereignty over a group of islands that are 1,300 miles away from it, and the opinion of the International Court of Justice was purely advisory. There is no legal reason why we have to do any of this. I warned the Foreign Secretary six weeks ago in this Chamber that it was an enormous mistake to do this, given that we had a US presidential election coming up on 5 November. Ministers might say to me, “It’s okay—the United States is fully in favour.” Really? I can tell the House that the incoming national security adviser Mike Waltz has form on this, going right back to when the right hon. Member for Braintree (Mr Cleverly) was doing his best to give away the sovereignty of the Chagos islands; indeed, Mike Waltz wrote to Secretary of State Blinken at the time.
I assure the House, having been in America last week and knowing the incoming US Defence Secretary very well, that there is outright hostility towards this deal. Whatever is said about a lease agreement, these agreements can very easily be broken, as we saw with Hong Kong. Diego Garcia was described to me by a senior Trump adviser as the most important island on the planet for America, so the Minister will find outright hostility.
By the way, what happened to the Chagossian people was truly awful, but they are unanimous in their wish not to live under Mauritian rule; they want to live under British rule because they trust us.
There is no basis for this agreement. If the Government continue with it, they will be at conflict with a country without which we would be defenceless.
Stephen Doughty
I am afraid I fundamentally disagree with what the hon. Gentleman said. Let me be clear: this Government inherited a situation whereby the long-term secure operation of this crucial military base—he is right on that one point—was under threat. International courts were reaching judgments and international organisations were taking steps not to undermine Mauritian sovereignty. That threatened the secure and effective operation of the base. In the absence of a negotiated solution, a legally binding decision against the UK seemed inevitable. That would have threatened the secure and effective operation of the base, and that was not sustainable. [Interruption.]
On the hon. Gentleman’s comments about the incoming US Administration, we very much look forward to working with them, and I am sure that they will be briefed on the full detail of the deal. I am confident that the details of the arrangement will allay any concerns, otherwise we would not have entered into any such arrangement in the first place. [Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. Mr Francois, I welcome you back to the Front Bench, but I do not welcome you shouting from it continuously. Do we understand that we need calm? This is an important subject, so I do not want the rhetoric that is coming from there.
Stephen Doughty
Mr Speaker, I have known the right hon. Gentleman a long time, and he knows that he can come and speak to me about these matters at any point.
Let me be clear: we will work very closely with the incoming US Administration, and we are working closely with the current US Administration. This agreement had support across the national security apparatus of the United States. Otherwise, we would never have entered into an arrangement. The previous Government recognised the threats to the long-term operation of the base, which is why they started the negotiations in the first place, but this Government did the deal. Diego Garcia is important, but it is not at risk—it is more secure as a result of the deal. What the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage) is suggesting is simply not the case.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned the Chagossians. What happened to them was completely wrong and shameful—that has been agreed on all sides of the House. I have engaged with the Chagossian community on a number of occasions. He will also recognise that there are a range of views across the Chagossian community, including those who support the deal. We have made sure that their interests are at the heart of the arrangement, whether in the trust fund, the unilateral arrangements, the continued commitment to UK citizenship for Chagossians, their ability to return to visit all the islands or the resettlement programme that Mauritius will restart under the treaty.
I am confident that this deal is the right thing for our national security, for the Chagossian community and for our allies and partners.
Phil Brickell (Bolton West) (Lab)
We heard representations from the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage) about upholding international law. Does the Minister agree that it is important that the UK fulfils its international law obligations? Does he recognise that in 2021, the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea confirmed that Mauritius has sovereignty over the Chagos islands? Does he agree that, notwithstanding that, the deal secures the long-term certainty of the base on Diego Garcia?
Stephen Doughty
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Agreeing this deal now on our terms means that we have been able to secure protections that will allow the base to operate as it has done into the next century. It settles the historical sovereignty claims in a way that successfully balances our international law obligations with vital UK and US national security requirements.
Priti Patel (Witham) (Con)
Thank you, Mr Speaker.
The world is a more dangerous place than ever before in our lifetimes and this Government have agreed to give away a key strategic asset in the Indian ocean, ending more than 200 years of British sovereignty. It is the wrong decision, and we stand by that completely. A month has gone since the Government’s announcement, but we are still in the dark about exactly what they have agreed. That is simply not acceptable. We have no treaty and vital questions remain unanswered. That is unacceptable and the Minister needs to put it right today.
We cannot afford for our military base on Diego Garcia to be compromised in this way. What safeguards will be in place to ensure that no other states can establish themselves or place their assets, in particular strategic assets, on any nearby islands in the archipelago? How does the decision affect the strategic defence review that is under way? How much money will Labour be asking British taxpayers to send to Mauritius each year under the deal, which we do not even know the details of? Which departmental budgets will that come from? What is the total figure? The House expects transparency, including on what taxpayers will be funding. We need to hold the Government to account on this.
Will the Minister please give a cast-iron guarantee that the UK will be able to unilaterally extend the agreement on the military base beyond 99 years? That is all we have heard for now. What will be the mechanism for doing that? This is a crucial piece of scrutiny that we all need to know about, particularly as the Minister raised a point about national security and the national security apparatus agreeing to this arrangement. What discussions has the Foreign Secretary—I know he is not here today—personally undertaken with the Chagossian community, who the Minister will know are beyond distraught about the agreement?
The elections in Mauritius and the United States pose further questions, and it is right that we follow up on them. Labour rushed into the deal just before the Mauritian elections, even though Ministers must surely have realised that a change of Government was a strong possibility. Why did they do that? The Minister needs to be clear. We want to know how the Government are going to engage with the new US Administration. The Opposition oppose the Government’s decision and we intend to hold them to account.
Stephen Doughty
First, I welcome the shadow Foreign Secretary to her place in this Chamber. We were in a Committee earlier today, but I welcome her to her place. I have always had good engagement with her on issues in the past and she is right to ask important questions, but the first thing I need to do is correct the idea that we are somehow giving up the base. That is exactly the opposite of what we are doing. We are securing the future of the base. The base will continue to operate. It will continue to operate as it has done.
The right hon. Lady asks an important question about security guarantees in relation to the outer islands. There will be clear commitments in the treaty for robust security arrangements, including preventing the presence of foreign security forces on the outer islands. We simply would not have signed off an agreement that compromised any of our security interests or those of our allies. Indeed, this has been discussed not just at a political level in the United States, but at a deep technical level. She will know from her time in government about the nature of the special relationship and the depth of that relationship. That is why we have proceeded only on the basis that we were all satisfied with the arrangements.
The right hon. Lady will be able to scrutinise those arrangements in due course, as will the House, Mr Speaker. The treaty will be presented in the usual way after signature. It will go through the usual process. [Interruption.] She asks when. We have just had the Mauritian election. We will be engaging with the new Administration there and seeking to present the treaty for signature. We will then present it, in all its detail, to the House.
The right hon. Lady asked about an extension period. There is a provision in the treaty for an extension period after the 99-year period.
The right hon. Lady asked about the Chagossians. Again, I gently say that there are a range of views in the Chagossian community. They have been expressed to me on many occasions, both before I came into government and since I have been in government. There is a range of views on the arrangement. We respect all the different views that are out there. We will continue to engage with the Chagossian community, but I am absolutely clear that there are important provisions in the deal that support the Chagossian community: their ability to return to the outer islands, the visits, the trust fund, the unilateral support we will continue to provide, and the fact that Chagossians are welcome to come here to the UK and take up British citizenship, which was an agreement under the previous Government.
Amanda Martin (Portsmouth North) (Lab)
Portsmouth is the home of the Royal Navy, and as the Member for Portsmouth North, I welcome the appointment of Jonathan Powell, who played an important part in negotiating this deal, as National Security Adviser. Does the Minister agree that with his experience in helping to negotiate the Good Friday agreement and his work on some of the world’s most complex conflicts, he is uniquely place to advise the Government on tackling the challenges ahead and to protect the advancement of UK security?
Stephen Doughty
I totally agree with my hon. Friend, who I know takes a keen interest in the overseas territories, in particular Gibraltar. I totally agree with her about the new National Security Adviser. He is a remarkable individual with a huge track record in government of making deals and getting things done, which I know is appreciated by our friends on the opposite side of the Atlantic, too. He is somebody who takes the national security of this country extraordinarily seriously, so I completely agree with her characterisation.
Dr Al Pinkerton (Surrey Heath) (LD)
Many Chagossians from all over the country gathered at a rally yesterday, where they expressed their concerns about the UK-Mauritius agreement. We reiterate our concerns here today. The exclusion of the voice of the Chagossians is wrong. It cannot be right, and surely no Member of this House could think it acceptable that the Chagossians are denied the opportunity for self-determination.
Will the Minister update the House to confirm the timescales by which Parliament will have oversight of the final treaty? Will he look again at injecting the voice of Chagossians into the process, even at this late stage? May I also raise the case of the Tamils stranded on Diego Garcia? We welcome recent news reports that they will be airlifted to the UK, but will the Minister update the House on whether that will take place and whether they will be permitted a permanent right to resettlement in the UK?
Stephen Doughty
I thank the hon. Gentleman, who speaks for the Liberal Democrats, for his questions. I know that the future of the islands is hugely important to the Chagossian community. I have engaged with the Chagossian community over many, many years and since I have been in government. We have always been clear about the importance of respecting their interests. I have to say, though, that the negotiations were between the UK and Mauritius, as sovereign states, with our priority being to secure the full operation of the base on Diego Garcia. However, it is crucial that we recognise the importance of Chagossian interests within this process and we have done that.
I am confident that when the full deal is presented to Parliament, which it will be in due course, there will be important provisions in there that will reassure members of the Chagossian community. As I mentioned, some of them have already been made public: the ability to visit, the ability to resettle on the outer islands, the UK citizenship guarantees, the trust fund, and, of course, the UK’s own support, which is crucial and comes on the back of the support we have provided for some time.
The hon. Gentleman asked about the Sri Lankan migrants on Diego Garcia. This Government inherited a deeply troubling situation which remained unresolved under the last Administration for years after the migrants arrived on Diego Garcia, resulting in mounting legal challenges. We have been working at pace to find a solution that protects the welfare of individuals and the integrity of British territorial borders. Due to the exceptional nature of the cases, the Government have taken the decision to relocate a small number of the migrants to the UK, but that is subject to security checks. They will get a short period of permission to enter the UK, when the individuals can consider their personal circumstances and next steps.
Tom Hayes (Bournemouth East) (Lab)
One of the wonderful things about our Parliament and our democracy is that our citizens can see our proceedings, but so too can our foes. Those who wish us harm and have no good intentions towards us will look across at the Opposition Benches and see that there is not a credible national security team when they are asking questions of this Government.
I want to confine my question to a constituent of mine who has lived in the UK for the last 17 years after leaving the Chagos islands. He is keen to reunite with his family who are now UK citizens, but housing costs are an issue. Will the Minister get back to me with information on whether housing support could be part of the Government’s overall support for the Chagossian community?
Stephen Doughty
I thank my hon. Friend for his question. Obviously, I do not know the full details of his constituent’s individual case, but if he writes to me, I will of course come back to him in due course.
Mr James Cleverly (Braintree) (Con)
Can the Minister confirm or deny that the right hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer) had any unminuted conversations with Philippe Sands KC about the Mauritian claim over the Chagos islands?
Stephen Doughty
The Prime Minister engaged with the former Prime Minister of Mauritius and with the US Administration on these matters. We have engaged with a wide range of partners in these discussions. The right hon. Gentleman is very familiar with them, as the former Foreign Secretary who was part of that process.
John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)
I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will agree with me that, as we discuss the very important issues raised by the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage), we must acknowledge that all right hon. and hon. Members are doing what is in the best interests of our country; that right hon. and hon. Members on the Opposition Benches do not have a monopoly on national security and defence; and, indeed, that it is this Government who are reforming and improving our international reputation around the world—our decision on the Chagos islands, which will protect the base and deal with the other issues my hon. Friend has mentioned, is an important part of that.
Stephen Doughty
Absolutely. The importance of national security to this Government is at the heart of the missions set out by the Prime Minister, which have been put into practice by the Foreign Secretary, the Defence Secretary and me, along with others across the Government. We would never take decisions that compromised the national security of this country, or indeed that of our allies, and that is why I am confident that this decision is the right one. Let us remember that this process was begun under the last Administration, because they recognised the challenge and recognised that something needed to be done about it.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)
Given that the Mauritian Government, with whom the Minister was dealing, have failed and are no longer in power, is this not a case of a deal with the wrong people at the wrong time for the wrong reasons, which has abandoned the Chagossians? The Chagossians made it very clear throughout—the fact cannot be misrepresented—that the vast majority wanted to go back, but they also wanted to remain British citizens. Now that we have an incoming Government in America and a new Government in Mauritius, what is the point of continuing with this agreement? We should start again, and recognise that the Chagossians do not want to be Mauritian. They want us to give them their property back, so why do we not just do that, and simplify the whole thing?
Stephen Doughty
The right hon. Gentleman knows that the national security interests of this country and, indeed, those of our allies transcend Administrations. We have just had an election as well; his Government started this process, and we are the ones who got it done. As for Mauritius, we welcome Dr Ramgoolam’s election. I understand that he and his Government are to be sworn in over the next few days, and we look forward to working with them to take forward this agreement. He is a friend of the UK and has deep professional and personal connections with it, having studied and worked here. I should also point out that his party, in opposition, made clear that it in no way wanted to contend with the operation of our base on Diego Garcia. We are looking forward to engaging with the new Government in the days to come.
Chris Curtis (Milton Keynes North) (Lab)
In the spirit of cross-party working, would the Minister like to take this opportunity to thank the previous Conservative Government for starting negotiations on this important matter? They realised then, even if they do not realise it now, its importance to our country’s national security.
Stephen Doughty
I thank my hon. Friend for his observation. The former Foreign Secretary, the right hon. Member for Braintree (Mr Cleverly), appears to be on his way out, but he recognised, as did many others in the last Administration, that we needed to secure a long-term, sure and legal footing for this base to meet the security needs of ourselves and our allies. We are the Government who came in and got the deal done.
Dave Doogan (Angus and Perthshire Glens) (SNP)
Does the Minister agree that the principal way to defend national security is to stand fast behind the international rules-based system, and that the principal way to do that is to adhere to the rulings of institutions such as the International Court of Justice?
A great deal of concern has been expressed during these exchanges about the sovereign democratic will of the Chagossians. What mechanism will the UK Government put in place to ensure that the House can be confident that the sovereign ambitions of the Chagossians as a people will be respected in this treaty, and not simply sacrificed for convenience?
Stephen Doughty
The hon. Gentleman is right about the importance of international law and adherence to it. This Government are committed to the rule of law, including international law. One reason we wanted to get this deal done was to put that base on a secure legal footing, along with our relationships with Mauritius and other states. There has been substantial criticism from other key partners around the world about our failure to reach a settlement, which was having an impact on our interests.
As I have said repeatedly, I have engaged with the Chagossians on many occasions, and we will continue to engage with them. We will continue to listen to the range of views in the community—there are a huge number—and to ensure that their interests are protected, which I am confident that the treaty does.
Mr Mark Sewards (Leeds South West and Morley) (Lab)
I know that the Minister is a strong ally and supporter of all our overseas territories, as are this Government. Will he take this opportunity to restate the Government’s unconditional commitment to the right of the people of the Falkland Islands and the peoples of Gibraltar to self-determine, and will he also confirm that we will continue to work closely with all our overseas territories?
Stephen Doughty
I thank my hon. Friend for his important question. I can absolutely confirm that, not least through my own actions and those of my ministerial colleagues. The Minister for the Armed Forces, my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard), has visited the Falklands in the last week, where he reiterated our absolute and robust commitment to their self-determination and sovereignty. I was in Gibraltar making the same point just a few weeks ago, and I was in three of our overseas territories last week making exactly the same commitments. This Government are committed to our overseas territories. I look forward to welcoming the leaders to the Joint Ministerial Council next week to say that to them in person.
Paul Holmes (Hamble Valley) (Con)
Once again the Minister has come to the Chamber and said that the last Government started these negotiations. May I remind him that it was the last Government who ended the negotiations, because the Foreign Secretary did not agree with the advisory legal opinion that was given? This Foreign Secretary capitulated in two days.
The Minister has also said that he will not reveal the cost of the deal because the Government do not release information about costs related to overseas bases, but when, on 14 October, my hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Ben Obese-Jecty) asked the Minister for the Armed Forces a question about the total cost related to an overseas base in Kenya, the answer revealed the cost of what the Government were giving to that base. What is so different in this case?
Stephen Doughty
There is a very clear difference. That is a training area, not a major base, and I will not go into the details of the operation on that base. I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman continues to ask for details relating to a base that is hugely important to our national security, when providing such information would put the security of the base at risk.
Joe Powell (Kensington and Bayswater) (Lab)
I know that the Minister is a strong friend of our overseas territories. Could he explain the importance of putting the US base on a legal footing, and give us a bit more detail about how that will enable us to work with our allies in countering any potential Chinese threat in the region?
Stephen Doughty
My hon. Friend has raised an important point, which has been raised in good faith by Conservative Members and, indeed, by others. I am absolutely confident that when the detail of the treaty is provided—along with other technical details, at appropriate levels—it will make clear our commitments to robust security arrangements to deal with the challenge to which he has referred, and that will include preventing the presence of foreign security forces on the outer islands. Let me reiterate that we simply would not have countenanced a deal that would in any way put our national security or that of our allies at risk.
Sir Gavin Williamson (Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge) (Con)
Quite simply, do we have the unilateral right to extend—yes or no?
Stephen Doughty
I have made it very clear that we have the right to extend the treaty beyond the 99-year period, and the right hon. Gentleman will be able to scrutinise the detail of that in due course.
Mr Calvin Bailey (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab)
It is difficult to fathom concerns raised by the Opposition about the consequences of governmental transition, as it was the former Conservative Foreign Secretary, the right hon. Member for Braintree (Mr Cleverly), who said, when leading negotiations with Mauritius:
“Our primary objective is to ensure the continued effective operation of our defence facility on Diego Garcia.”—[Official Report, 13 June 2023; Vol. 734, c. 151.]
Does my hon. Friend agree that this Government have now delivered that, and should the Conservatives not be welcoming the agreement?
Stephen Doughty
Let me first thank my hon. Friend for his service for our country and its national security—and, indeed, thank all new Members who have served in our armed forces. I completely agree with his comments: we are indeed protecting our national security and putting matters on a secure footing
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
Alexander Downer, a former Australian Foreign Minister, a former high commissioner to this country, a former United Nations special adviser on Cyprus and a good friend of this country, says that the surrender of the Chagos Islands is
“symptomatic of a country that no longer has geopolitical perspective.”
What is the Minister’s response to Mr Downer’s remarks, and does he agree with his comment that the last Labour Government were prepared to capitulate on the two Cypriot sovereign base areas, Dhekelia and Akrotiri? Who would have thought it? Is not the Chagos surrender just same old Labour—strong on post-colonial guilt and weak on safety, security and stability?
Stephen Doughty
I do not recognise those comments in the slightest, not least because we have repeatedly made clear our commitment to our overseas territories: to the Falklands, to Gibraltar, and to the sovereign base areas in Cyprus, which, as the right hon. Gentleman well knows, are protected under the 1960 treaty. I have made statements to that effect. We are clear about our support for those territories and their importance to us. This is not about handing something over; it is about Diego Garcia being on a secure footing, with our military base and our presence secure for the future.
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)
The expulsion of the Chagossian people from both Diego Garcia and the archipelago was an act of wanton brutality by the British forces at the time. The Chagos Islanders have fought a doughty battle for more than 40 years in courts all over the world, at the United Nations and in courts in this country, and they have demanded their right to return. All along, they have been determined to achieve that right, and they deserve our congratulations on that. Their right to return must be recognised, and international judicial systems have all shown that the Chagos Islands should clearly be part of Mauritius. Therefore, returning the islands to Mauritius is obviously the correct thing to do.
Can the Minister assure me that the Chagossians’ right to return to the archipelago, Peros Banhos and the other islands will be accompanied by the right to have a presence on, or to visit, Diego Garcia itself? It is perfectly possible that such things could be arranged. I ask him not to send us down the road of rebuilding the British empire, which is apparently what the Conservative party and Reform want to do. We do not live in an age of empire; we live in an age of the right of people to live their lives according to international law, and that is what is on offer.
Stephen Doughty
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his question. I have been very clear that the way the UK removed the Chagossians from the archipelago in the 1960s and ’70s was wrong. I know that there is agreement across the House on this issue, and we are committed to building a relationship with the community that is built on respect and on acknowledgement of the wrongs of the past.
The right hon. Gentleman asks a very technical question. He is absolutely right to say that Chagossians will have the right to visit all the islands. Given the sensitivity of the facilities on Diego Garcia, he will understand that some procedures are in place around that, but it will be possible to have visits. We hope to be able to announce the scheme for that in due course next year. Most importantly, the treaty allows for resettlement of the outer islands by Mauritius.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
Further to the question from my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) about incoming Administrations in Mauritius and the United States, our allies in the United States will clearly have serious concerns about what the proposals are. Will the Minister set out when the treaty is expected to be signed and, indeed, whether this House will get a say over whether that treaty should be signed before it is cast into law?
Stephen Doughty
As someone who has been in the House a long time, the hon. Gentleman will be aware of the procedures for dealing with treaties in this place. The treaty will be signed, it will come through this place, and it will have the appropriate scrutiny—it is only right that it does and that questions are asked. I am absolutely confident that when the full details of the treaty are provided to the incoming Administration in the United States, they will be absolutely confident that it meets US and UK national security interests and is in the mutual benefit of all parties involved.
Richard Tice (Boston and Skegness) (Reform)
If the incoming President Trump Administration confirm that they are against this dreadful deal, will the Government stop negotiations and apologise to this House, or will they try to force it upon our most important international strategic partner?
Stephen Doughty
The hon. Gentleman will surely know that the convention is that we deal with one Administration at a time. We have very positive and warm engagement with President-elect Trump and Vice President-elect Vance’s incoming Administration. We look forward to discussing these matters with them, and we will engage with the United States in the usual way. We are absolutely clear that this treaty is in the UK-US national security interests. It meets the security concerns, and it puts the base on a secure footing into the next century.
Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)
Can the Minister explain why the Government rushed into this deal so that it could be completed just before the Mauritian election? Is it proper for the British Government to give diplomatic kudos to a party in a foreign election?
Stephen Doughty
I completely reject those comments. Given that the previous Government spent over two years engaging in multiple rounds of negotiations in preparing the basis on which we got a deal done, the idea that we rushed into something is simply not true. It was not done in a rush. We are getting the job done, and keeping our national security and our interests secure.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
The Minister’s answers have not been what we have sought from him, so I will ask my question in a different way. Does he acknowledge the feelings of the Chagossians, who have peacefully protested about having their sovereignty stripped from them behind their backs? Does he recognise that the deal struck with China over Hong Kong has not been respected, and that our withdrawal has left the people of Hong Kong saying that they have been abandoned? That should serve as a warning. Will the Minister rethink the decision and respect the wishes of the Chagossians?
Stephen Doughty
The hon. Gentleman knows that I have a great deal of respect for him on these matters, and for his care for people and human rights around the world. I am very clear that the treaty and the deal respect the rights and interests of the Chagossians, and we have sought to put them at the heart of the arrangements. I have engaged with many Chagossians, who have a range of views, as we have heard today. It is absolutely clear to me that we need to put their interests at the heart of the deal, and we have done that. I am confident that when they look at the detail, they will see very positive outcomes for them and their communities, and we will provide that detail to the House in due course.
James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Commonwealth Parliamentary Association and International Committee of the Red Cross (Status) Bill [Lords]
Stephen Doughty ExcerptsWednesday 13th November 2024
(2 months, 1 week ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Commonwealth Parliamentary Association and International Committee of the Red Cross (Status) Act 2025 View all Commonwealth Parliamentary Association and International Committee of the Red Cross (Status) Act 2025 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 13 November 2024 - (13 Nov 2024)
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss clause 3 stand part and the schedule.
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Stephen Doughty)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairpersonship, Mr Vickers. I welcome Members to the Committee and thank the Bill team and the Clerks for their work in preparing for these sittings. This Parliament is still relatively new, and I am sure that Members who have not been in one of these Committees before will find it as delightful as I did, when I first came to this place, to go line by line through Bills. This Bill is a slightly unusual example because it enjoys wide support across the House and has been debated a number of times in different forms.
At the outset, I thank the shadow Foreign Secretary, the right hon. Member for Witham, and welcome her to her new role. She and I have sparred and have also worked together on many occasions. It is a genuine pleasure to have her here, and I thank her for the Opposition’s support for the Bill. I think we can get through this relatively quickly.
This is an important Bill for the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association and the International Committee of the Red Cross, and for their standing in this country. I hope that we can get through the technical scrutiny and put this on the statute book as soon as possible. Of course, we are coming off the back of a very successful Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting attended by the Prime Minister, Foreign Secretary, Lord Collins and others, alongside Ministers and leaders from across the Commonwealth, so it is right that we debate this Bill today. I welcome our guest, Mr Twigg—a former Member of this House—to the Gallery, and thank him for all his work with the CPA over many years.
Many of us have benefited from associating with and engaging with CPA delegations on important work. I attended a useful conference in Ghana a couple of years ago with parliamentarians from across Africa. I cannot tell the Committee how important it was for me to be able to engage with colleagues on a wide range of issues, including women’s rights, security, healthcare and climate change. The inter-parliamentary and inter-Commonwealth understanding brought by the CPA is crucial to all our work in this place and to the work of the Government.
The United Kingdom greatly values its long-standing programme partnership with the CPA and appreciates the important work that it is doing to strengthen inclusive and accountable democracy across the Commonwealth. Treatment as an international organisation will allow the CPA to continue to operate fully across the Commonwealth and international fora, and allow the organisation to participate fully in areas where it is currently restricted, including signing up to international statements and communiqués.
Stephen Doughty
I thank the shadow Foreign Secretary for her warm support for the Bill. I very much appreciate her agreement with the proposals in the clause. She asked what we can do to lean in and support the work at the CPA and, I assume, in the Commonwealth more generally. In fact, I have already been to an event hosted by Mr Speaker that encouraged Members to be heavily involved in the CPA, the Inter-Parliamentary Union and a number of other inter-parliamentary bodies. From my experience in this place, I know that they are incredibly important organisations that do brilliant work, and we as a Government certainly support Members of both Houses and, indeed, of the devolved Administrations taking part fully in that work. One of the first CPA conferences that I took part in was in the Senedd—the Welsh Parliament—in my constituency, which brought together representatives from not only across these islands, but across Europe and the Mediterranean. That was one of my first such experiences, and it took place in a devolved legislature in the UK.
This is really important work, and I know just how important all the legislatures across the Commonwealth are. Representatives of the provinces in Canada, the states in Australia and elsewhere often take part in these bodies, so the Government are fully supportive of this. As for our wider support to the Commonwealth, as one of the largest funders to the secretariat and its programmes—I think the figure is £13 million—we continue to support the organisation and its aims overall.
The shadow Foreign Secretary referenced the important work on governance, rights and other matters. Fundamentally, that comes back to the Commonwealth charter, which we are all signed up to. It is an important reference point for us to return to when we engage in some of the more challenging issues. Of course, we welcome the new secretary-general of the Commonwealth to her place and look forward to working with her.
I thank the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Esher and Walton, for her support and for emphasising the important role that the CPA, and the Commonwealth as a whole, play in supporting good governance and strong democracies and societies across the world.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 1 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 2
The International Committee of the Red Cross
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Stephen Doughty
There were some references made to the ICRC in the previous debate, and we are now discussing that important part of the legislation.
As the shadow Foreign Secretary pointed out, the International Committee of the Red Cross is an essential partner for achieving the UK’s global humanitarian objectives, and it plays a unique and important role, particularly in conflicts in some of the most harrowing circumstances. I, too, have engaged in work with the agency on many occasions in my career, both in this place and in the humanitarian sector prior to that.
The ICRC has unique legitimacy to engage all parties to conflicts. It has unparalleled access to vulnerable groups in conflict situations, and it is frequently the only international agency operating at scale in many conflicts. It is therefore critical to enable it to operate in the UK, in accordance with its unique international mandate, which means maintaining its strict adherence to the principles of neutrality, impartiality, independence, and, importantly for the provisions in the Bill, its working method of confidentiality.
The clause confers on the ICRC the legal capacities of a body corporate.. Key capacities relevant to the operation of an international organisation in the UK are to conclude contracts, to acquire and dispose of property, and to institute and be party to legal proceedings. The clause also enables the provision of specific privileges and immunities in respect to the ICRC, which will need to be determined on the basis of the functional need of the organisation and will be specified through arrangements to be agreed on after the passage of the Bill.
Monica Harding
The Liberal Democrats support the immunities and privileges given to the ICRC under the Bill, which support its unique mandate of neutrality. Its work is needed more than ever on the frontline of conflict—there are more than 120 ongoing armed conflicts in the world—not least in its understanding and witness to the exercise of humanitarian law, which is sometimes applied permissively. I pay tribute to its work, and the Liberal Democrats support the clause.
Stephen Doughty
I thank the shadow Foreign Secretary and the Liberal Democrat spokesperson for their support for the clause and the important protections it provides for the ICRC. I agree with their comments about the important work that the ICRC does. The Government are absolutely committed to supporting its work. It is indispensable in many of the harrowing situations we are engaged in. The shadow Foreign Secretary and I have engaged with the ICRC on a number of occasions and seen its work at first hand.
The shadow Foreign Secretary is right about the importance of continuing to support the ICRC’s work financially. I will not go into details of individual settlements in this debate for obvious reasons, but I am very happy to ask my right hon. Friend the Minister for Development to write to her to set out the details of our financial relationship with the ICRC going forward. It is an important organisation to support, because we all care about humanitarianism and treating prisoners of war, hostages and others properly. It does important, unique work that has been established for a very long time in relation to the Geneva conventions.
The shadow Foreign Secretary rightly raised the issue of balance between good governance and not allowing wrongdoing in the humanitarian sector to remain covered up. That is exactly why we have struck a balance in the Bill between necessary confidentiality for the ICRC, and that not applying to those criminal proceedings. Obviously, we would continue to work with the ICRC, as we would with any other international humanitarian organisation, to ensure that it upholds the highest standards of internal governance and procedures. We are very supportive of whistleblowing and other schemes that allow those who suspect any wrongdoing, whether in these organisations or any other, to raise a concern and have it dealt with appropriately, not only concerning our own relations with that organisation, but also within the international system as a whole.
I thought it might be worth briefly setting out why it is important that we get these confidentiality provisions right because, to date, the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office has been successful in applying to UK courts for public interest immunity—for example, to prevent disclosure of ICRC communications or to consider ICRC evidence in closed material procedures. However, the reality, and the right hon. Member for Witham understand this, is that those decisions are at the discretion of the court in each individual case and so cannot fully address the ICRC’s concerns. The release of material into closed material procedures still breaches the ICRC’s standard working methods of confidentiality, so even though we would expect confidentiality in those proceedings, that is not guaranteed. That is why it is important to put this important provision on the statute book and to give the ICRC and the CPA that assurance.
The Bill and, indeed, its predecessors have been developed in close co-operation with the ICRC and the CPA, so it very much reflects their needs and, crucially, the need for them to continue to work with us in the most productive and outcome-based way. The Bill and clause therefore strike the right balance between the confidentiality they need to work with us, but without a blanket exemption that allows anything to go because, clearly, when it comes to criminal or other matters, those need to be dealt with in the appropriate way.
Sam Rushworth (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)
After receiving advice from my Whip, I should declare an interest: I am a former employee of the Red Cross and, while there is no financial connection between us today, I retain a strong bond of affection for the movement.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Clause 5 stand part.
Government amendment 1.
Clause 6 stand part.
Stephen Doughty
We now come to some of the more technical aspects of the legislation, which I hope will not detain us too long. It is reassuring to hear a number of Members talking about their connections to the CPA and the Red Cross movement. That is fantastic, and we have a wealth of expertise, particularly from the development and humanitarian sectors, in this new Parliament, which will be to the benefit of debates on many matters.
It is a long-standing practice that privileges and immunities are conferred by Order in Council. Clause 4 provides that any Order in Council made under clauses 1 and 2 is subject to the draft affirmative parliamentary procedure, as I set out on Second Reading in October. For the benefit of new Members in particular, statutory instruments that are subject to the draft affirmative procedure require the approval of both Houses of Parliament before they may have effect. The clause also provides further detail as to the scope and extent of the delegated legislation-making power under clauses 1 and 2. In particular, an Order in Council may make different provision for different cases and persons and may contain consequential, supplementary, incidental, transitional or saving provisions.
In addition, the clause provides the enabling power for two important aspects that are fundamental to the operation and management of privileges and immunities in respect of an international organisation. First, the Order in Council may specify circumstances where privileges or immunities do not apply, whether because of an exception to those privileges or immunities or because they have been waived by the organisation. Secondly, the Order in Council may specify that fiscal reliefs and exemptions are subject to arrangements or conditions imposed by the Secretary of State or the commissioners of His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs. That will facilitate the application to the organisations of existing administrative schemes and processes in respect of international organisations that are administered by, among others, the FCDO and HMRC.
Clause 5 explains that the term “the ICRC” means the International Committee of the Red Cross, as given under clause 2(1)(a). It also ensures that the definition of “statutory provision” allows for the treatment of the CPA and the ICRC as international organisations to be applied in regard to all relevant legislation, primary and secondary, including devolved legislation in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, whenever made. That is important because the Bill gives both the CPA and the ICRC treatment comparable to an international organisation, and therefore the organisations need to be recognised in the same way across all relevant legislation.
Furthermore, that definition of statutory provision applies to the ICRC confidentiality provision in clause 2. It provides for protected ICRC information to be exempt from any disclosure requirement imposed by a statutory provision.
Kate Osamor (Edmonton and Winchmore Hill) (Lab/Co-op)
I apologise for my lateness. I, too, wanted to put on the record that I am the chairman of the UK branch of the CPA.
Stephen Doughty
On a point of order, Mr Vickers. I want to reiterate my thanks to the Bill team, the officials of my Department and all Members who have taken part today, and to the CPA and the ICRC for their work. I have many experiences of working with both organisations. I am glad we have been able to proceed in swift time. I hope that the Bill can now proceed, with your agreement, Mr Vickers, to its next stage.
Bill, as amended, to be reported.
Sanctions: Iran
Stephen Doughty Excerpts(2 months, 4 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Stephen Doughty)
I beg to move,
That the Iran (Sanctions) (Amendment) Regulations 2024 (SI, 2024, No. 944), dated 11 September 2024, a copy of which was laid before this House on 12 September, be approved.
These regulations amend the Iran (Sanctions) Regulations 2023. The instrument was laid before Parliament on 12 September under powers contained in the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Act 2018, and the measures entered into force the following day. As the Minister responsible for sanctions, I would like to start by setting out the Government’s priorities in this area. Since coming into office, I have been clear that we must have the necessary powers and tools to implement and enforce our sanctions regimes effectively.
The proper implementation and enforcement of UK sanctions is critical to maximising their impact, and this Government are committed to improving the UK’s track record on sanctions enforcement. That is why, on 10 October, we launched the Office of Trade Sanctions Implementation—OTSI—which enhanced civil enforcement powers to maximise the impact of the UK’s trade sanctions. These powers include the ability to issue civil monetary penalties for sanctions breaches, and for OTSI to make details of breaches public. There are also new reporting requirements on sectors that are well positioned to find evidence of trade sanctions breaches. We have put in place similar civil enforcement powers for transport sanctions, aligning the enforcement of trade and transport sanctions with our approach to financial sanctions.
I have also brought together ministerial colleagues on sanctions enforcement, and colleagues in the Treasury, the Home Office, the Department for Business and Trade, the Department for Transport and the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero are working towards a shared vision of how to enhance it. That will include ways in which we can further support UK overseas territories and Crown dependencies with their sanctions enforcement. We plan to be transparent on what we are doing, and I look forward to updating Parliament on enforcement actions in due course.
The Government have deployed sanctions in innovative and impactful ways, including in the sanctions package we are putting forward today. We have taken swift and decisive action to increase pressure on Russia’s war machine, spearheading a call to action at the European Political Community in July to tackle Russia’s shadow fleet. We have sanctioned 43 oil tankers that were transporting Russian oil, as well as nine liquefied natural gas vessels involved in shipping Russian LNG, including from Russia’s flagship Arctic LNG 2 project, to target the Kremlin’s energy revenues.
We have also enhanced our response to the threat from the Iranian regime, and I will now turn to the details of the instrument before us. It contains measures to deter the Government of Iran from causing regional and international instability, by disrupting its unmanned aerial vehicle and missile industries and its access to items critical for military development. I hope the House will support these important measures today.
The Iranian regime’s development and proliferation of large volumes of advanced conventional weapons, including UAVs and missiles, continues to destabilise the middle east and also prolongs Russia’s illegal war in Ukraine. Iran’s use of an unprecedented number of UAVs and missiles during its attack on Israel on 13 April demonstrated how Iranian weapons development and proliferation is fuelling conflict and escalation in the middle east.
The Iranian regime also used hundreds of these arms in its attack against Israel on 1 October, which we condemn in the strongest terms. That attack once more endangered the lives of innocent civilians and escalated an already incredibly dangerous situation, and that cannot be tolerated. In response to Iran’s 1 October attack on Israel, the UK has designated nine individuals and entities involved in facilitating Iran’s destabilising activity. That includes senior military figures and the Iranian Space Agency, which develops technologies that have applications in ballistic missile development.
We are deeply concerned about the prospect of further escalation, and all efforts must now be concentrated on breaking the cycle of violence. At this moment, when tensions are at their peak, calm heads must prevail and all sides must take immediate steps to de-escalate. A regional war is, of course, in no one’s interest. However, this is the latest incident in the long history of Iran destabilising the region, including through its political, financial and military support for its proxies and partners, such as Hezbollah, Hamas, the Houthis and its aligned militia groups in Iraq and Syria. We have been clear and consistent that Iran must cease this support.
Sir Gavin Williamson (Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge) (Con)
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his generosity in giving way. Does he accept that the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps is a key component of the destabilisation sponsored by the Iranian regime? Will he update the House on the Government’s thinking on proscribing that organisation? I think he would find many allies across the House who would be keen to see that happen.
Stephen Doughty
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his comments. We of course recognise the huge threat that the IRGC poses, and we will take the necessary measures to counter it at home and around the world. He will understand that the Government keep the list of proscribed terrorist organisations under careful review, and we do not, of course, comment in the House on whether an organisation may be under consideration.
As I said, Iran is now one of Russia’s top military backers and has supplied it with hundreds of UAVs since 2022, including different models of drones. Russia has used those to target Ukraine’s critical infrastructure and to kill innocent civilians, prolonging the suffering of the Ukrainian people. In September, Iran supplied Russia with hundreds of close-range ballistic missiles. That is a further escalation of Iran’s military support for Russia’s war of aggression against Ukraine and will further enable Russia’s invasion. In return, Iran is receiving Russian military and technological support, enabling it to further develop its military capabilities and enhancing the risk it poses to the region and beyond.
The legislation before us expands the UK’s trade sanctions against Iran, with the aim of disrupting its UAV and missile industry and its access to items critical to military development. It includes sanctions in relation to the items on the Russia common high priority list. The list, which was jointly agreed by the UK, the EU, the US and Japan in the context of Russia’s war against Ukraine, identifies items that Russia is using in its weapons systems, ranging from semiconductors to machine tools. Those items are also significant in Iran’s production of advanced conventional weapons. As the House will know, there have been many public reports about Iran’s supply of weapons to Russia. Through the instrument, we are therefore prohibiting the export, supply, delivery and making available of those items to Iran.
We are also prohibiting the provision of ancillary services associated with the goods, such as brokering services, technical assistance, financial services and funds. All the items prohibited by our partners in the EU in May are also prohibited by the instrument. In addition, prohibitions will be applied to some items identified by the Ministry of Defence as significant to Iran’s UAV and missile industries.
We have also taken the opportunity to simplify some of the existing trade sanctions on Iran so that businesses are better able to implement them. These trade restrictions complement our existing export controls and sanctions, ensuring that no UK business or person, wherever they are in the world, can facilitate the export, transfer, supply, delivery and making available of these items to Iran without prior authorisation.
I hope that the House will support these measures. I commend them to the House.
Several hon. Members rose—
Stephen Doughty
I thank all right hon. and hon. Members for their contributions. They have made some important points, and I thank them for their wholehearted support for the regulations. It is important that we maintain unity in the House on these measures to tackle these regimes, whether it be Russia or Iran. As I said earlier, these measures represent a step forward in our capability to restrict Iran’s proliferation of advanced conventional weapons, which continue to fuel the conflict we have been discussing in the middle east and to support Russia in its illegal war in Ukraine. We are firmly committed to using sanctions to hold the Iranian regime to account for its malign activities in the UK and elsewhere.
I should point out that we do not just have these regulations. Continuing on from measures under the previous Administration, on 2 September we sanctioned four IRGC Quds Force targets who have a role supporting Iranian proxy actions in Iraq, Syria and Lebanon. We announced sanctions against 15 Iranian and Russian targets on 10 September, cancelled our bilateral air service arrangements with Iran Air and targeted those who were involved in a series of actions.
We have consistently raised our concerns directly with the Iranian regime and, indeed, with a range of partners. On 14 October we designated nine individuals and entities involved in facilitating Iran’s destabilising activity. That included senior military and IRGC figures and entities involved in Iran’s ballistic missile programme. Those are just some of the examples since this Government came in, but they are among more than 460 Iranian individuals and entities that have been sanctioned due to Iran’s malign activities in the region and internationally. That includes 94 human rights-specific sanctions on individuals and entities, to respond to many of the significant and rightful concerns raised by colleagues today.
Alicia Kearns
It is clear from the tenor of the House—I have to say as a woman that I find it incredibly moving to hear my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle (Dr Mullan) and the hon. Member for Ceredigion Preseli (Ben Lake) speaking so strongly for the women who continue to be raped and blinded by the Iranian regime—that the House is saying that we want to see more effort on this. I would be grateful if the Minister committed to taking that away. I am not asking for him to predetermine what he will do on sanctions, but it is incredibly powerful to hear so many men speaking up for Iranian women, and they need to hear our voices or they will lose hope.
Stephen Doughty
I wholeheartedly agree with the hon. Lady’s comments. As she knows, we do not comment on future designations, but I have certainly heard the strong voice across the House today, which reflects the horrific reality for women and girls—ordinary Iranian civilians—under that repressive regime. I thank her overall for her support. She rightly highlighted a series of Iran’s malign actions. I agree with her that those promoting proscribed organisations in the UK should face the full force of the law. That is for our law enforcement agencies, but the Prime Minister and others have made that absolutely clear.
The hon. Lady raised concerns in relation to the foreign influence registration scheme. I assure her that we remain absolutely committed to that. We will further strengthen our national security while maintaining the UK as an international hub for business. Announcements on the tiers will be made at a later stage, but we are absolutely committed to it—it is not going anywhere. We are committed to moving forward with that agenda and I have been discussing it with colleagues across government.
The hon. Lady and others mentioned the JCPOA. Let me be clear: snapback remains an option. We remain in close contact with E3 and other partners, and I will say a little more on that in a moment. I refer her to my previous comments on the IRGC as a whole. She and other hon. Members asked me about the internationalisation of sanctions. Absolutely, this is about working with partners. Are we looking at how we can increase penalties and enforcement? Absolutely, whether that be OTSI or others. Obviously, I cannot comment on future investigations and designations.
The hon. Lady asked about wider UK military support to Ukraine. I point to the very important announcement yesterday, on top of existing commitments. The extraordinary revenue acceleration will deliver an additional £2.26 billion to Ukraine for crucial needs, working with our partners across the G7. I will come on to Lebanon in a moment, but do I condemn all the proxies that Iran is supporting? Absolutely. We have been very clear about that.
Other right hon. and hon. Members made important points. My hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Nesil Caliskan) and the Liberal Democrat spokesman, the hon. Member for Bicester and Woodstock (Calum Miller), rightly referred to issues around human rights and repressive actions within Iran itself. He asked specifically about one case. I know he received a specific answer from the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln (Hamish Falconer) on that yesterday in FCDO questions. He asked about the wider issues around illicit finance and kleptocracy. These are significant priorities for the Foreign Secretary and me. I assure him and the House that we are working at pace on these issues and will be announcing further measures in due course. He asked about public registers of beneficial ownership and ensuring transparency. I am in close contact with our overseas territories regarding these issues and have made it clear that we expect to see progress at pace. I will make that clear to leaders before the joint ministerial council in a few weeks’ time. My hon. Friend the Member for Hendon (David Pinto-Duschinsky) rightly referred to the heinous executions and internal repression, although, as I said, I will not comment on further designations.
I thank the right hon. Member for Maldon (Sir John Whittingdale) for his kind remarks about the cross-party support we have had for Ukraine. He rightly raised issues relating to the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea. He will have heard in recent days the Foreign Secretary, with his counterpart in the Republic of Korea, state our absolute condemnation regarding DPRK’s involvement in Russia’s illegal war in Ukraine. I will certainly take a look at The Economist article he mentioned. We will seek to do everything we can to close down loopholes and ensure the effectiveness of our regime.
The hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Dr Mullan) made some very powerful points, in particular highlighting the impact on women and girls, and minority groups—that was also touched on by the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon)—within Iran. The Government remain absolutely committed to freedom of religion or belief, and targeting religious minorities or repressive actions against them cannot be tolerated.
The hon. Member for Ceredigion Preseli (Ben Lake) also highlighted the internal oppression. The hon. Member for Honiton and Sidmouth (Richard Foord) ranged over a whole series of issues, but spoke in particular about third-country circumvention. Addressing this issue is a key priority for the Government. It is one that forms a regular part of my conversations with third countries identified. I have had numerous such conversations in recent weeks and we will, with our allies, continue to do so. We must close down all loopholes and all routes, whether in Russia or Iran, to ensure our sanctions regimes are effective.
Before concluding, let me briefly touch on a couple of the specific themes that came out of the debate. Let me be clear: Iran’s actions in relation to Israel are completely unacceptable. The Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary have been absolutely clear that we stand with Israel and recognise its right to self-defence in the face of Iranian aggression. We absolutely condemn in the strongest terms its attack against Israel. We designated individuals specifically in response to the attack on Israel, including senior military figures and entities involved in Iran’s ballistic missile programme.
I referred to the JCPOA, but let me be clear that Iran’s nuclear escalation since 2019 has gone far beyond JCPOA limits and is undermining the deal. Alongside our E3 partners, we will use all diplomatic options available to ensure that Iran never develops a nuclear weapon, including triggering the snapback of all UN sanctions lifted under the JCPOA if necessary. I mentioned the actions that we have taken against regional proxies, but let me remind the House that the UK proscribes the entirety of Hezbollah as a terrorist organisation, and has an asset freeze in place against the entire organisation. We assess Hamas in their entirety to be concerned with terrorism, and therefore proscribe the organisation in full. The Houthis are sanctioned in their entirety by the UK and are subject to a targeted arms embargo.
On human rights, as I said, there are 94 human rights sanctions on Iranian individuals and entities. The horrifically high rate of executions is a deliberate attempt to instil fear and stifle dissent in Iran. As a Government we remain opposed to the death penalty in all circumstances, as a matter of principle. The situation for women and girls is truly horrific. We condemn Iran’s appalling treatment of women and girls, including through its repressive policies. We will work with international partners to engage with the findings of the UN special rapporteur on Iranian human rights.
Media freedoms were also mentioned; as a member of the Media Freedom Coalition, we are determined to ensure that journalists are able to do their jobs without fear of retribution. Given the situation for detainees and the historical cases involving Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe and others, we continue to believe that British nationals and British-Iranian dual nationals are at significant risk of detention in Iran. British nationals are advised not to travel to Iran, but we do not and never will accept our nationals being used as diplomatic leverage.
Jim Shannon
Again, I apologise for not being here earlier to ask the Minister a question directly. The IRGC is quite clearly the leader of Iran’s private army. It is involved in some of the worst repression, murders and despicable acts across all of Iran. Is it not time to collate all this information and put it together to hold those people accountable for what they are doing, and for human rights abuses in Iran?
Stephen Doughty
I made clear our position on the IRGC earlier, but as I pointed out, we have sanctioned directly a number of individuals involved with that organisation. We recognise the threat that it poses and will take the necessary measures to counter it at home and around the world, but obviously we do not comment on future designations.
The safety and security of the United Kingdom from Iran’s malign actions has been raised on a number of occasions. It was rightly pointed out that the UK has identified at least 15 threats towards UK-based individuals. Our police, intelligence and security agencies have been confronting these threats for many years, but their seriousness has increased in recent months. Let me be clear: we will always stand up to threats from foreign nations, and we will continue to work closely with our international partners to identify, deter, and respond to those threats.
Lastly, on Lebanon, we have been very clear that a political solution consistent with resolution 1701 is the only way to restore its sovereignty, territorial integrity and stability. We have been calling for an immediate ceasefire between Lebanese Hezbollah and Israel, and a political plan that will enable civilians on both sides to return to their homes. Nobody wants further escalation, and we will continue to work with partners across the region on that.
These new regulations will increase the pressure on Iran’s defence industry. They will disrupt Iran’s production of UAVs and missiles that could be supplied to proxies in the middle east or Russia. We will continue to work with likeminded partners. The regulations send a clear message to the Government of Iran and those seeking to harm the UK’s security and that of our partners: we will not stand idle in the face of this aggression. I commend the regulations to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That the Iran (Sanctions) (Amendment) Regulations 2024 (SI, 2024, No. 944), dated 11 September 2024, a copy of which was laid before this House on 12 September, be approved.