Oral Answers to Questions
Stephen Doughty Excerpts(3 days, 14 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lee Anderson (Ashfield) (Reform)
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Stephen Doughty)
We remain committed to concluding a deal that protects the base on Diego Garcia. Without a deal, the base cannot operate in practical terms as it should in its important role protecting the security of this country, the United States and our allies. We are currently discussing the agreement with the US and Mauritius. We will not put a deadline on its finalisation, and will come to the House in due course.
Mr Mohindra
The Labour party’s determination to give away vital strategic territory in the Chagos islands, seemingly to satisfy one of the Prime Minister’s lawyer friends over our American allies, is baffling to my colleagues on the Conservative Benches. Does the Minister agree that it is far more important to maintain our special relationship with the US and the new Trump Administration than to pay billions of pounds in the face of the self-inflicted, worsening domestic economic situation, in order to give the Chinese Government access to that vital region?
Stephen Doughty
There are so many things in the hon. Gentleman’s question that I disagree with that I do not know quite where to start. We are not giving away the base on Diego Garcia—the deal secures that base. If there was not a problem with its operation and its future, why did his Government start negotiations on it?
Lee Anderson
The Minister will be aware that the Chinese have a smart city situated in Mauritius, so what safeguards are in the deal to prevent Chinese installations on Diego Garcia that could compromise our western naval security?
Stephen Doughty
We are absolutely clear that we will retain full control over Diego Garcia, and will have robust provisions to keep adversaries out. There will be unrestricted access to and use of the base for the UK and the US, a buffer zone around Diego Garcia, a comprehensive mechanism to ensure that no activity in the outer islands threatens base operations and a ban on the presence of any foreign security forces. I absolutely assure the hon. Gentleman that the provisions are in place to defend the security of that critical base.
Priti Patel (Witham) (Con)
The Foreign Secretary has proudly said that his Chagos surrender plan was a good deal. He told the Foreign Affairs Committee back in November that it was “a very good deal”, and that he was
“confident that the Mauritians are still sure about that”.
Three weeks ago, the Prime Minister of Mauritius told his National Assembly that since his election, he had concluded the deal
“was so bad that we said, no way!”
and that he had extracted more concessions from the UK on the length of the lease, the extension on sovereignty and the cost. Can the Minister confirm that changes have been made since the announcement of the deal on 3 October last year, and does he disagree with the account given by the Prime Minister of Mauritius?
Stephen Doughty
The fundamentals of the deal remain the same, and the overall quantum remains unchanged.
Rebecca Smith (South West Devon) (Con)
Freddie van Mierlo (Henley and Thame) (LD)
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Stephen Doughty)
The Prime Minister, the Foreign Secretary, the Minister for the Cabinet Office and I are engaging extensively with European counterparts, including through the Prime Minister’s attendance of a European Council meeting for the first time since Brexit. We are working closely with European allies, and are calling for increased defence spending and support for Ukraine. This deeper engagement has already delivered results on growth and security, including a landmark defence and migration agreement with Germany.
Freddie van Mierlo
The Thames valley is one of the most important economic zones in this country. At a recent meeting that I held with the business leaders of the Thames Valley chamber of commerce, the overwhelming message was that Brexit has been a disaster for business, and that Boris Johnson and the Tories did them dirty. Will the Minister commit to correcting that wrong, and start negotiations to join a European Union customs union?
Stephen Doughty
We have been very clear that we do not seek to rejoin the customs union, but our co-operation is already delivering results, particularly in relation to growth and business. We recently secured a £250 million Czech investment in Rolls-Royce small modular nuclear reactors, and a further £600 million investment by Polish firm InPost in its UK operations, and as I have said, we have also signed deals on migration with Serbia, Kosovo, Slovenia and Slovakia.
Fred Thomas (Plymouth Moor View) (Lab)
Ceasefire talks between Russia and Ukraine are under way, whatever our opinion of them, but the eager eye of Putin may now look to other former Soviet countries, such as the Baltic states. I was in Estonia a couple of weeks ago, and the distance between the Russian border and the Russian-held Kaliningrad territory is just 300 miles. For context, that is roughly what I travel every week to Plymouth from London. What steps are the Government taking to deter the Russians from looking at possible future military action there?
Stephen Doughty
As I have said, security is at the heart of our engagement with European counterparts, and the UK’s commitment to the security of the Baltic states is iron-clad. We are helping to uphold that region’s security through our NATO forward land forces deployment in Estonia—the Prime Minister met joint expeditionary force leaders in Tallinn in December to discuss closer co-operation, in response to both conventional threats from Russian aggression and hybrid threats—and, of course, our work together on Ukraine. I have visited that border and met our enhanced forward presence troops there; they are doing an excellent job, and it is crucial that we stand with our Baltic neighbours and all of Europe when it comes to our collective security.
Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)
The UK can be proud of the leadership it has shown in supporting Ukraine and rallying our international partners around this cause. What work is the Minister leading, with European allies, on unfreezing sanctioned assets, so that they can be used to equip Ukraine, and what is his timeframe for releasing critical sanctioned funds, so that they can be used to strengthen Europe’s defence of our values, security and defence?
Stephen Doughty
As the right hon. Lady knows, we have already done important work with European partners to secure the extraordinary revenue acceleration loan, which will make a tangible difference to Ukraine. We continue to work with European partners on sanctions, and of course, we are considering all lawful options going forward. We have had important discussions in the Weimar group and through the G7, and will continue to look, with European counterparts, at all options for supporting Ukraine.
Calum Miller (Bicester and Woodstock) (LD)
It was shocking yesterday to see the United States vote with the despots of North Korea, Belarus and Russia against a UN resolution proposed by the UK and other European democracies. Liberal Democrats want to see the UK lead in Europe against Putin’s war on Ukraine, so we were pleased to hear the Foreign Secretary say yesterday that he was taking forward our Liberal Democrat proposal that the £40 billion of frozen Russian assets held in European central banks be seized and given to Ukraine. Can the Minister confirm that the Foreign Secretary will push the US Administration to join in that initiative when he visits Washington later this week?
Stephen Doughty
I am genuinely glad of the continued cross-party co-operation on Ukraine, which we saw during the Foreign Secretary’s statement yesterday. Of course, that includes getting important resources. I am not quite sure that the proposal was a Liberal Democrat proposal, but I think there is a united front across this House on getting Ukraine the resources that it needs. We will continue to work with European counterparts in support of Ukraine at the United Nations, across Europe and through NATO, using all the means that we can to support Ukraine militarily, economically and diplomatically.
Perran Moon (Camborne and Redruth) (Lab)
Stephen Doughty
Apologies, Mr Speaker. I am answering a lot of questions today.
I have significant concerns about the Georgian authorities’ violent crackdown on peaceful demonstrators and journalists, which is completely unacceptable. In response, we have suspended programme support to the Georgian Government, restricted defence co-operation, and limited engagement with Georgian Dream. We have imposed visa bans and sanctions on some of those responsible for the violence, and we continue to work with international partners to support a free and open civil society and media in Georgia.
Perran Moon
Meur ras, Mr Speaker. Last month at the Council of Europe, I met several Georgian opposition members, who showed me graphic evidence of the brutal physical abuse meted out by the Georgian regime before, during and since the recent parliamentary elections. Bidzina Ivanishvili, the Putin-backed oligarch and de facto ruler of Georgia, continues to suppress peaceful protest, using an identical modus operandi to that used in Russia. Violence and intimidation are distorting the political process. The United States has imposed sanctions on Ivanishvili, but much of his wealth is based in the UK or in British overseas territories. Will the Minister commit to the UK joining our allies and freezing the assets of such a despicable tyrant?
Stephen Doughty
I thank my hon. Friend and his fellow members of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe delegation for the important work that they are doing, including on the issue of Georgia. It is hugely important that we stand together with fellow Europeans in the Council of Europe on these matters. In co-ordination with the US, the United Kingdom has imposed sanctions on the Minister and deputy Minister of Internal Affairs and three police chiefs responsible for violent attacks against journalists and peaceful protesters in Georgia. My hon. Friend will understand that while we continue to closely monitor the evolving situation in Georgia, we do not comment on potential sanctions designations, as to do so would lessen their impact.
James MacCleary (Lewes) (LD)
The European Parliament recently recognised Salome Zourabichvili as the rightful President of Georgia. Protesters who are on the streets of Tbilisi day in, day out, agree with that view. She has met the President of France, Emmanuel Macron, and she attended the recent inauguration of the US President. Will the Minister commit to meeting with Madame Zourabichvili the next time she visits the UK?
Stephen Doughty
We continue to engage with a range of figures in Georgia. We continue to engage with all those who seek a Euro-Atlantic path for Georgia, which is defined in its constitution and is the wish of its people. We will continue to work closely with European counterparts on the issue.
Bell Ribeiro-Addy (Clapham and Brixton Hill) (Lab)
Jacob Collier (Burton and Uttoxeter) (Lab)
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Stephen Doughty)
I am delighted that my hon. Friend has visited those incredible commandos during their training. I, too, have visited our Royal Marines and Army commandos in the high north in Norway and witnessed the vital role that they play in our strategic defence efforts. The UK and Norway work closely together as NATO and joint expeditionary force allies. Our Prime Minister signed a strategic partnership agreement in December, and, last week, the Defence Secretary visited Norway to launch a new agreement on deeper defence co-operation. I and the Foreign Secretary have also visited our counterparts, and I can tell my hon. Friend that security and defence co-operation were absolutely at the heart of our efforts and discussions with our Norwegian friends.
Monica Harding (Esher and Walton) (LD)
Joe Powell (Kensington and Bayswater) (Lab)
Stephen Doughty
I thank my hon. Friend for his praise and support for the action that the Foreign Secretary has just mentioned. This was our largest ever sanctions package since the start of Russia’s illegal and barbarous invasion. We and our G7 allies are absolutely clear on the principle that Russia must pay for the damage that it is causing to Ukraine, and we of course look at third country routes by which support is being given to Russia’s illegal actions in Ukraine. As part of the package announced yesterday we are taking a number of steps in that regard, including with companies in China.
Dr Al Pinkerton (Surrey Heath) (LD)
Last week, the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs, the hon. Member for Lincoln (Mr Falconer), left open the possibility that the FCDO might revisit the issue of explicit carbon monoxide warnings on FCDO travel advisory pages—a change that we contend would have a cascading effect on the UK travel industry, drive up the use of carbon monoxide alarms and save lives of British travellers overseas. May I encourage the Front-Bench team to pick up this issue in the name of my constituent, Hudson Foley, to ensure that the lives of British travellers overseas are kept safe?
Syria: Sanctions
Stephen Doughty Excerpts(2 weeks, 1 day ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Stephen Doughty)
Today I am updating the House on the future of the UK’s Syria sanctions regime following the welcome fall of Assad’s dictatorship late last year.
Sanctions remain a powerful foreign and security policy tool, and this Government are committed to maximising their impact, which includes reviewing their use in light of changing circumstances.
Therefore, I am pleased to inform the House that the Government will bring forward measures in the coming months adapting the Syria sanctions regime, including amendments to the Syria regulations, which Members of Parliament will have the opportunity to debate.
We are making these changes to support the Syrian people in rebuilding their country and to promote security and stability. They will include the relaxation of restrictions that apply to the energy, transport and finance sectors, and provisions to further support humanitarian delivery.
The Government remain determined to hold Bashar al-Assad and his associates to account for their actions against the people of Syria. We will ensure that asset freezes and travel bans imposed on members of the former regime remain in force.
In this way, the FCDO will continue to use sanctions in a manner that is targeted, proportionate and robust to hold accountable those responsible for atrocious crimes committed during Assad’s reign and to support what we hope will be Syria’s transition to a more secure, prosperous and stable future.
[HCWS451]
Chagos Islands
Stephen Doughty Excerpts(3 weeks, 2 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
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 negotiations of the transfer of sovereignty of the Chagos islands to Mauritius.
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Stephen Doughty)
As we and Mauritius have repeatedly said, including in joint statements on 20 December and 13 January, both sides remain committed to concluding a deal on the future of the Chagos archipelago that protects the long-term, effective operation of the UK-US base on Diego Garcia. Securing the long-term future of the base has been and remains our primary objective throughout this process.
Following technical talks between the UK and Mauritius last month, we have made very good progress towards this deal. Both sides have agreed that, given the importance of the base to the United States as well as to us, it is right that the new US Administration have the chance to consider the full agreement properly, as I discussed with the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage) in yesterday’s Westminster Hall debate. We are closely engaging with the Administration, including sharing the full details of the agreement. It would not be appropriate or usual for me to give a running commentary on the detail of those discussions or the agreement. As I have said on a number of occasions, Parliament will have the opportunity to scrutinise the deal in the usual way. Following signature, the Government will bring forward a Bill to implement the treaty.
I must reiterate that the Government inherited a situation where the long-term future of the military base, which is vital to UK and US security, was under threat, as opposition Members know. The previous Government recognised that, which is why they began negotiations in 2022 and held 11 rounds of negotiations. This Government have secured a deal that protects the base for at least the next 99 years—a period that can be extended. That means that the UK and the US will be able to operate the base unchanged well into the next century.
There will be clear commitments in the treaty for robust security arrangements, including preventing the presence of foreign security forces on the outer islands and ensuring that the base can continue to operate securely and effectively. We would only agree a deal that we are confident protects our national security and that of our allies.
Nigel Farage
The Mauritian Parliament had the opportunity yesterday to debate this at length, but it seems the Minister was perhaps rather more reluctant to be here today.
Jonathan Powell, our national security adviser, has been doing the rounds in Washington, where he has been telling everybody, including members of the new US Cabinet, that this is necessary—that we have to give away the sovereignty of the Chagos islands—and that in those circumstances a negotiated 99-year lease is the best option. But that is just not true, is it? It is not true at all. It does not stand. There is no legal basis on which we have to give away the sovereignty of the Chagos islands. An advisory judgment from the International Criminal Court has no force of legal power whatsoever; indeed, America disregards it so much that it is not even a member.
The Americans, by the way, have been pretty busy with foreign policy just lately, so it is perhaps no wonder that Diego Garcia has not been high on their agenda, but when they wake up to the fact that this has been done—wholly unnecessarily—I would not be surprised if we find ourselves, together with the European Union, in their tariff regime.
Can the Minister confirm that there is no binding legal basis for this transfer of sovereignty whatsoever?
Stephen Doughty
The hon. Gentleman goes over ground that he has gone over before, with questions I have answered in this House and, indeed, which were discussed in yesterday’s debate. We have been very clear, as indeed were the previous Government, that this base was not on a secure footing. This has been done in full agreement with the US national security apparatus across the piece. He refers to the ICC; it was, of course, the International Court of Justice that made that judgment.
We are very clear that the joint UK-US base on Diego Garcia plays a critical role in countering an array of threats to regional and international security, and we will not scrimp on the security of that base or on the solidity of the agreements around it. We will ensure that it is in operation well into the next century and that we are able to operate unimpeded as we do today. That is exactly why the previous Government recognised there was a problem and engaged in this process, and it is why we have brought that problem to a conclusion, with a deal that protects our interests and the interests of the United States and that ensures the security of the base and its operation.
As I have said, once the treaty is signed, it will be brought before the House for scrutiny before ratification in the usual way. [Interruption.] I hear chuntering from the Opposition Benches. I have to say, the Opposition seem to have collective amnesia over this issue. They know full well the reasons behind this; many of them were members of the previous Government. They have heard what the Prime Minister just said on the Leader of the Opposition’s attacks. We are very clear that this is about defending the UK’s security, putting the base on a secure footing and securing that for the future, for both us and our allies.
Mr Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)
At the most recent Environmental Audit Committee sitting, we heard about the importance of the Chagos islands for the marine environment. Can my hon. Friend tell us anything more about the specific reassurances we have had on that crucial area for the biodiversity of the marine environment, and how that will be protected after this deal, from the discussions that he has had?
Stephen Doughty
I thank my hon. Friend for his important question. It was a delight to appear before his Committee to discuss other matters just a few weeks ago. This treaty reflects both parties’ shared commitment to uphold international environmental law, including high conservation standards across the archipelago. Mauritius has expressed dedication to marine conservation and has aligned its global initiatives to protect 30% of marine areas by 2030 and its commitments under the sustainable development goals, and establishing a fit-for-purpose marine protected area is a crucial part of that. We will work with Mauritius very closely on this matter. It was a very important part of the discussions, and I am very glad we have been able to make the agreements that we have.
Priti Patel (Witham) (Con)
Let us be clear: Labour’s disastrous deal is one of the worst foreign policy failures in modern British history. Labour is surrendering an absolutely critical strategic defence asset that we operate together with our closest security partner—now we are told we will have to pay billions for the privilege of doing so. When Labour negotiates, Britain loses, and loses big time.
While this House has been kept in the dark on the details, our counterparts in Mauritius have not. They had a robust debate in Parliament, which many of us watched on YouTube. It was just extraordinary. The Prime Minister of Mauritius gave his Parliament a detailed account, and even a chronology, of the deal and the negotiations that led to it—details that Labour repeatedly refused to disclose to this House and which the Prime Minister of Mauritius set out in no uncertain terms so that nobody should be in any doubt.
This weak, hapless Government have backed down and the House deserves answers today. Has the Minister given away our ability to unilaterally extend the period over which the UK can exercise sovereign rights on Diego Garcia? The Mauritius Prime Minister says he has. Has the Minister given away our ability to exercise sovereign rights over Diego Garcia entirely? If so, what is the cost? Is it £9 billion? Is it £18 billion? Is it to be inflation-proofed, as the Mauritian Prime Minister stated in Parliament yesterday? If the Minister is frontloading payments, what other services will be cut here in the United Kingdom in the immediate term to make room and pay for the deal? When Labour is imposing taxes on education, family farms and businesses, and has cut winter fuel payments for vulnerable pensioners, how can this eye-watering amount of money be justified to lease back a territory for which—guess what—we already own the freehold?
Will the Minister also say whether he will have to make defence cuts to absorb this enormous cost? Should the Ministry of Defence be shouldering the costs? What budget will it come from? Will the Government count the payments towards the 2.5% defence target?
On the sovereignty of bases, does the deal pose a new precedent for other bases, such as Cyprus? The Mauritius Prime Minister said last month that his Attorney General met the Minister and the UK Attorney General. Will the Minister confirm what was discussed? Importantly, may I ask again: if the Government think this is such a good deal, does he stand by that and will he defend our interests?
Stephen Doughty
I have to say again to the right hon. Lady that it was her Government—a Government that she was part of—who started the negotiations and went through 11 rounds of negotiations. She knows full well the reasons why. Quite frankly, I find it extraordinary for her to talk about defence and the national security of this country, when we are having to rebuild and clear up the mess that her Government made of our armed forces and our defence. I am very glad to be joined on the Front Bench by the Minister for the Armed Forces, my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard). It is this Government who are rebuilding our defence, increasing our spending, and delivering for our armed forces and national security around the world. Indeed, this agreement is a crucial part of that. A lot of the figures being speculated about in the media should, as I said yesterday, be taken with a pinch of salt. We have been clear: there is no change to the substance or the quantum in relation to this agreement.
The right hon. Lady raises inflation. I am surprised she mentions that, because indexation was there in the public statement made about the negotiations on 3 October. Indeed, it was part of the agreement from her Government, so I am very surprised that she asks that question.
Lastly, I am deeply disappointed, as are our friends in the overseas territories around the world, that constant false comparisons keep being made with our other bases and our other overseas territories. This is not a read-across situation. We are committed to our base on Cyprus. We are committed to Gibraltar. We are committed to the Falklands. We have been absolutely and resolutely clear about that. To continue to suggest that there is some sort of threat to them quite frankly undermines our national security and does not strengthen it in any way.
Emily Darlington (Milton Keynes Central) (Lab)
Does the Minister agree that, despite the Member for the Trump Government’s misrepresentations, the UK Government must provide their own independent global leadership based on UK values and UK interests to make a safer world, despite or because of the new US Administration’s changing foreign policy, including closing the United States Agency for International Development, and on the Chagos islands?
Stephen Doughty
I set out yesterday, in a very important debate on our bilateral relations with the United States, just how much we are co-operating already with the new US Administration on defence, security and our shared priorities around growth and prosperity. We are absolutely committed in our wider international obligations. We have set that out, the Minister for Development, my right hon. Friend the Member for Oxford East (Anneliese Dodds) has set that out, and my colleagues have set that out in relation to climate change. We will continue to work with the United States on all the global challenges we face.
Calum Miller (Bicester and Woodstock) (LD)
I put on record the deep concern of the Liberal Democrats at the way this deal has progressed.
We accept the ICJ ruling. I thought there was a consensus across the House on the importance of the UK upholding the rule of law, so I am bemused by the confected consternation of those on the Conservative Benches. It was the then Foreign Secretary, the right hon. Member for Braintree (Mr Cleverly), who in 2022 stated:
“it is our intention to secure an agreement on the basis of international law to resolve all outstanding issues”—[Official Report, 3 November 2022; Vol. 721, c. 27WS.]
But under this Labour Government, Chagossians have been ignored, Parliament is without a say, and the lack of foresight on how the US presidential election might affect the deal is troubling. After failing to force through an agreement, Ministers have now given Donald Trump a say about the future of sovereign British territory. Can the Minister confirm that before signature, this House will be given a vote on the terms of the final deal, in particular to see how UK security interests have been protected?
Stephen Doughty
I have set out on a number of occasions why the deal is right for our national security interests and those of our allies. I have also set out very clearly the normal process. It will go through Parliament.
Mr Alex Barros-Curtis (Cardiff West) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for his response to the urgent question. I listened carefully to the concerns of the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage) about the deal. If those concerns are about the possible costs, then given that his entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests states that he has earned nearly £600,000 in the past six months since his election, perhaps the Minister might agree with me that the hon. Gentleman could make a donation to the Government to secure our national security—
Mr Barros-Curtis
Thank you, Mr Speaker. Apologies. Will the Minister reassure me, as he has in his response and in countless statements before, that when the treaty comes before the House, securing our national security will be paramount through a process that, as he said, was started under the previous Government?
Stephen Doughty
We will not scrimp on national security, as I have said. There has been no change to the substance of the deal or the overall quantum agreed. We will present the process in the usual way, as I have said multiple occasions.
Mr Andrew Mitchell (Sutton Coldfield) (Con)
I want to try to be helpful to the Minister. I was the Deputy Foreign Secretary throughout much of the negotiations and I am in a position to tell the House that neither my right hon. Friend the Member for Braintree (Mr Cleverly) nor the noble Lord Cameron in the other place would ever, as Foreign Secretary, have done the deal that the Government are now intent upon. I think the Minister must be praying every night for a “get out of jail free” card—that, when the American Administration come to look at the deal, they will veto it and get the Government off the hook.
Stephen Doughty
I set out very clearly the reasons for the doing the deal. It is the right deal for our national security and that of our allies. The right hon. Gentleman knows that because his Government started the process. We are engaged in constructive discussions with our US counterparts. It was absolutely right that they had the chance to consider the deal. We will allay any concerns raised, and that have been raised in the House previously, in terms of the security provisions. They have been provided with the full detail of the agreement.
Mr Calvin Bailey (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab)
The hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage) says he wants to help UK relations with the US, but he has a very funny way of going about it. Opposition Members state over and over again that they understand the desires and the psyche of the US military and its people, yet they ignore the fact that, the ICJ rulings aside, the previous and present US Administrations understand the language of business and agreements, and not the gentlemen’s agreements that have in the past marred discussions and negotiations about the stability and persistent military presence on the islands. It is for that reason that I ask the Minister if he agrees that the confirmation of the legal status of the base will cement our role in the Indo-Pacific and put us in a strong position to counter Chinese influence in the region.
Stephen Doughty
My hon. Friend is absolutely right about protecting against malign interests. That is exactly at the heart of the deal. He is also exactly right about the history of why the deal was needed. That was, of course, recognised by the previous Government, which was why they started the negotiations. We wanted to put the base on a secure footing well into the next century, which is what I assume they were trying to do previously and spent 11 rounds negotiating. We have come to a deal that is in our national interest. Most crucially, it is our national security and that of our allies that is at the heart of it. There are multiple safeguards in place in the treaty. They will protect our national security and that of our allies.
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
Given that what the Minister has told the House today is so at variance with the report from the Prime Minister of Mauritius, surely it rings alarm bells in his mind about the nature of the polity and the individuals with whom he is negotiating—and has he entirely lost his moral compass? The Government are considering taxing death-in-service benefits of our servicemen while at the same time contemplating spending £18 billion on saving a base that we already own.
Stephen Doughty
I am not going to reflect on the appalling record of the right hon. Gentleman’s Government on defence and our service people. We are getting around to rebuilding our relationship with our armed forces and rebuilding our defences, in view of the global threats that we face.
The right hon. Gentleman asked about the Mauritian Prime Minister, who is, of course, responsible for his own words. I certainly do not recognise some of the commentary that there has been over the last 48 hours. It is clear that there has been no change in the substance of the deal or in the overall quantum agreed.
Jacob Collier (Burton and Uttoxeter) (Lab)
The Minister has described the conversations he has had with American allies, but can he update the House on the conversations he has had with the wider NATO partnership, given the consequences that this could have for them?
Stephen Doughty
Our NATO membership is utterly crucial. We have a “NATO first” strategy. The Prime Minister has met the Secretary-General in the last 48 hours, and I was with NATO colleagues at the North Atlantic Council just before Christmas. We are absolutely clear in our commitment to our NATO allies and our commitment to the United States. They form a bedrock of our security in a globally uncertain time, and that is also why we need to secure the base into the long-term future.
Dr Al Pinkerton (Surrey Heath) (LD)
A few weeks ago I had the privilege of meeting a large group of Chagossians who had come from, in some cases, as far away as France to discuss with Members of Parliament their feelings about this deal. I was one of only three MPs who turned up, and the Chagossians were devastated by that turnout. They told us that they had not been in any way meaningfully consulted about the deal, so the Minister has a challenge on his hands. He told the House that meaningful negotiations and discussions had taken place. He has a choice today: he can either tell us precisely what those consultations and negotiations were, or correct the record.
Stephen Doughty
I am rather confused by that question, because I have been very clear about the engagements that I have had with members of the Chagossian community. There were two, and I have given the dates on which they took place. We continue to engage with members of that community; in fact, my officials will meet some of them next week, and I look forward to meeting them again in due course.
As I have said many times before, I respect the range of differing views within the Chagossian community. For example, the Chagos Refugees Group—one of the largest Chagossian groups—has welcomed the agreement. There are a range of Chagossian groups around the world, as the hon. Gentleman knows, and we will continue to engage with them and listen to all their views. I can assure him that the interests of Chagossians are at the heart of this agreement.
Mr James Cleverly (Braintree) (Con)
The Minister, like the Prime Minister before him, keeps implying that if Members of this House were armed with the same information that they were armed with, they would come to the same decision. Well, I was armed with the information that the Minister has at his disposal; I did not come to the same decision, and neither did my direct successor, Lord Cameron of Chipping Norton. Do the Minister, the other Ministers in the Government and the officials who work on their behalf understand that the point of a negotiation is not to get any deal but to get a good deal, and that if you do not get a good deal you should walk away from the table, as we did?
Stephen Doughty
As I said earlier, the right hon. Gentleman recognised that there was a problem, he started the negotiating process, and they went through 11 rounds. This is a good deal, and that is why we have agreed it.
Stephen Gethins (Arbroath and Broughty Ferry) (SNP)
For years, an international rules-based system has been the cornerstone of both our economic prosperity—as the hundreds of billions wasted on a pointless Brexit have illustrated—and our security. China does not get that, Russia does not get that, and the current occupant of the White House does not seem to get that. Do the Government get that?
Stephen Doughty
We are absolutely clear about the fact that national security is our top priority. We need to maintain our security in all parts of the world. We are in very dangerous geopolitical circumstances, as I think all Members recognise, and that is exactly why we are investing in our defence, in our NATO partnership, and in our relationships with the United States, our European counterparts and many others. We will always put the national security of our citizens and our country first.
Sir Jeremy Wright (Kenilworth and Southam) (Con)
I have asked the Minister this question before, but if he will forgive me for saying so, his answer could have benefited from additional clarity, so, with your permission, Mr Speaker, I am going to ask it again.
The Minister has made it very clear, as have his fellow Ministers, that the urgency and necessity of action in this instance is based on the imminence of an adverse court judgment against the UK. He knows that the International Court of Justice is not the court that we must be thinking of here, because the United Kingdom is not subject to the compulsory jurisdiction of the ICJ when it concerns disputes involving members or former members of the Commonwealth, so it cannot be an ICJ judgment that the Minister is worried about, can it? If it is not that, what is it?
Stephen Doughty
I have explained on a number of occasions, and the last Government knew the reasons, why it was necessary to proceed with a deal to secure the future operation of the base—that was very clear—and why our allies wanted us to secure it.
Let me give the right hon. and learned Gentleman an example. We currently have unrestricted and sole access to the electromagnetic spectrum, which is used to communicate with satellites and which is guaranteed and governed by the International Telecommunication Union, a United Nations body based in Geneva. If we lose it we can still communicate, but so can others. That is one of many examples. There are a series of aspects that are important to the operations and the security of the base, its maintenance into the future, and its ability to operate unimpeded. I can tell the right hon. and learned Gentleman that all those considerations, and the protections that we have secured, have been part of why we have reached this deal. We would not have agreed a deal that did not secure the unimpeded operation of the base into the future and also left it continually at risk, as it is at present.
Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)
We have not been able to obtain any facts from the Government about the cost. The deal is, of course, inflation-linked, and we do not know what inflation will be in the future. We do, however, know three facts: first, the base is crucial to our national interests; secondly, China is seeking to expand its influence across the Indian Ocean and Africa; and thirdly, the Mauritian Government will have clear, unambiguous sovereignty over the islands. How can the Minister anticipate that our interests are safeguarded if he does not know what relationship future Mauritian Governments will have with China?
Stephen Doughty
I have answered that question on a number of occasions. Mauritius is one of the few African countries not to join the belt and road initiative—its alliance is with India—and we have clear guarantees in the treaty setting out the protections against malign interests on the outer islands and, indeed, in the surrounding area. That is why the whole United States security apparatus agreed to this. We would not have agreed a deal that did not protect.
Let me give some examples. The UK has full control over Diego Garcia, including control over the electromagnetic spectrum, and unrestricted access to and from the base; there is a buffer zone around Diego Garcia, in which nothing can be built or put in place without UK consent; and, of course, there are the various different robust mechanisms and review processes to ensure that no activity in the outer islands or the surrounding area can impinge on the operations of the base. The right hon. Gentleman can be assured that we would not have agreed a deal that would allow any malign force, wherever it might be in the world, to use the space around the islands or to interfere with our operations. This is about putting the base on a secure footing into the future, for our national security and that of our allies.
Sir John Whittingdale (Maldon) (Con)
The Prime Minister, and the Minister just now, have stressed the strategic importance of the military base at Diego Garcia. Can the Minister make it clear that there will be no restrictions in the lease as to what the base can be used for or what might be stored there, and that the UK will have the right to extend that lease when it expires?
Stephen Doughty
I can absolutely confirm that there will be no change in the operations of the base. That is the basis on which this agreement is founded, along with all the provisions and protections within it. As I explained in earlier answers, the lease is for 99 years, with the possibility of an extension at the end of it.
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)
Can the Minister assure us that he will not be dragged down the road of rebuilding the empire, as he was invited to do by the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage), and will he also confirm that in international law, the Chagos islands in their entirety have become part of Mauritius? Should we not be concentrating on the right of return of all Chagossians to the islands, for which they have been campaigning ever since the 1980s, when they were so disgracefully removed? This is an issue of decolonisation, and of the Chagossians’ right of return. I should be grateful if the Minister confirmed that any agreement with Mauritius will include their automatic right of return to the archipelago and their right at least to visit, and if necessary reside briefly in, Diego Garcia. They have suffered too long and too hard, and they have been treated so brutally that they deserve justice.
Stephen Doughty
The primary purpose here is national security and ensuring the functioning of the base, but the right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to raise the issue of the Chagossians and their treatment in the past, which we all agree was wrong, and their interests are absolutely at the heart of this agreement. It will mean that, for the first time, we can resume visits to all the islands, including Diego Garcia, with the appropriate protections in place. Hopefully, it will allow settlement on the outer islands, which is part of our discussions with Mauritius on the treaty. Of course, the Chagossians can, subject to the relevant security clearances, work on Diego Garcia as well. We recognise their lands, graves and history, and our package of measures to support the Chagossian community—both globally through a trust fund and here in the UK—will be very important. Those are some of the issues on which we look forward to engaging with Chagossian representatives over the weeks to come.
Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)
The US has the most substantial interest in Diego Garcia, which is the fulcrum of what we are discussing today. Although I understand that the Minister cannot disclose the details of the compensatory package that is being negotiated, is it reasonable to assume that the US will be making a substantial contribution to that compensatory package?
Stephen Doughty
As I have said, I am not going to give a running commentary on the discussions. What I will say is that the full details are being shared with the current US Administration, and it was absolutely right that they had the chance to consider them. We are always being accused of rushing, but this has been going on for more than two years. There have been lengthy rounds of discussions and lengthy rounds of negotiations, mostly under the previous Government, but it is absolutely right that the new US Administration have time to consider the deal and to be provided with the details, particularly around security issues, so that they can be absolutely sure about the security of the base and its operation into the future, which is in their interests and ours.
Dame Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)
It is outrageous that we only know the detailed speculation about this deal because of the briefing from the Mauritian Prime Minister to his Members of Parliament. It is outrageous that the amount of money being talked about now is £18 billion, which is enough to pay for the winter fuel allowance for all our pensioners for the next 12 years. The Minister will not tell this House the actual quantum of money that he is discussing with Mauritius. Can he put it on the record now, and can he tell us out of which departmental budget it needs to be paid?
Stephen Doughty
I can tell the hon. Lady that the figure that she pulled out is categorically untrue. She had the answer in her question: she said “speculation”. There is a huge amount of speculation, and I would take the vast majority of it with a pinch of salt.
Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)
My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kenilworth and Southam (Sir Jeremy Wright) spoke incredibly slowly and incredibly clearly—so much so that even I understood his question. However, the Minister did not actually give him an answer. When we joined the ICJ, we did so on the basis of a carve-out that meant that no ruling by the ICJ in respect of Commonwealth or former Commonwealth countries could be binding on His Majesty’s Government. Is it the ICJ that he is concerned about, or another court?
Stephen Doughty
As we have said repeatedly, the base was not on a sustainable footing. This deal puts it on a sustainable footing.
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
What does it say about this Government’s priorities that they will deny pensioners the winter fuel payment, leave WASPI women with nothing and fail to support jobs on Merseyside by supporting AstraZeneca at Speke, and that they should be contemplating an emergency Budget to raise more taxes on hard-working British people, while spaffing £9 billion on Mauritius?
Stephen Doughty
I am not entirely sure what the right hon. Gentleman’s question is. If he is talking about the previous Government’s economic legacy to this one, we have a substantial disagreement. The fact is that we are picking up the pieces from the mess in which his Government left the country economically and, crucially, in terms of our national defence. We will not scrimp when it comes to our national security, we will not scrimp when it comes to our armed forces, and we will not scrimp when it comes to our overseas bases and our commitments to our allies. That is exactly why we are getting this deal.
David Mundell (Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale) (Con)
I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.
There has never been a satisfactory explanation as to why this deal was rushed out hours before a very unpopular Government called a general election in Mauritius, which created the impression that this Government were attempting to interfere in Mauritius’s democratic process. The outcome was that the Mauritian Government secured only one seat in their Parliament in the general election. Can the Minister finally tell us why it was imperative to rush the deal out in that timeframe, hours before an election was called?
Stephen Doughty
Again, I refer to my previous statements. There has been no rush. We have been engaging with our Mauritian counterparts and the United States Administration, and we believe that we have a deal that meets all the interests of those involved and, crucially, that protects our national security. There is no rush.
Dave Doogan (Angus and Perthshire Glens) (SNP)
This matter must be so important if it consumes so much of the Minister’s credibility and £18 billion of taxpayers’ money. One would think there would be more than four Government Back Benchers here to speak about it. Is it that they do not care, or do they lack the literacy to discuss these issues? The Minister said on the “Today” programme this morning that we have passed the situation on to the White House, that we await its feedback and that, when we receive it, we will know exactly where we stand as a Government. Is that the type of sovereignty he is after?
Stephen Doughty
There are so many different bits of the hon. Gentleman’s question that I do not recognise. For a start, I was not on the “Today” programme this morning, so I do not know who he is referring to. I certainly do not recognise the figure of £18 billion, so I do not understand at all what he is getting at.
Ben Obese-Jecty (Huntingdon) (Con)
The Minister confirmed to me in a written answer last week that we will not have a unilateral ability to extend the agreement. In December, the Minister for the Armed Forces, the hon. Member for Plymouth Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard), said that he was confident that Members would back it when we saw the detail. This is seemingly a renegotiated deal, and we have not seen the detail of the original deal or this deal. What are the differences between the previous deal and the renegotiated deal, and when will the details be presented to Members of this House?
Stephen Doughty
There has been no change to the substance of the deal, nor to the overall quantum agreed. We will present it in due course so that it goes through the normal process of scrutiny in this House.
Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)
I have a simple question: do the Government disagree with anything that the Prime Minister of Mauritius said about this deal yesterday, and if so, what is it?
Stephen Doughty
I refer the hon. and learned Gentleman to the answer I gave a few moments ago. The comments of the Prime Minister of Mauritius are for him to make. As I said, there has been no change to the substance of the deal, nor to the overall quantum agreed. We believe that we have reached a deal that is in the interests of the UK and Mauritius and, indeed, of the United States and our allies.
Mr Joshua Reynolds (Maidenhead) (LD)
Parliament has been without a say on the deal, despite numerous efforts to raise concerns. Why should Donald Trump have a say about British sovereign territory when British elected officials do not? When will the Minister ensure that this House is given a final say on the deal?
Stephen Doughty
This House will have a final say on the deal, in the usual way for considering such measures. Legislation will be laid in due course. It is absolutely right that the United States Administration have the chance to consider the deal, to raise concerns and to be briefed on the full details, which is why we have given them time to do so. Of course, our relationship with the United States on these islands is also governed by international law and an exchange of letters between the United States and the United Kingdom, and it is absolutely right that we meet those obligations too. We also have shared commitments to security in the Indo-Pacific, so it is absolutely right that the deal is agreed. It was agreed with the US national security apparatus prior to the election, and it is right that the new Administration get their chance to look at it and ask whatever questions they wish.
David Reed (Exmouth and Exeter East) (Con)
Will the FCDO team please confirm who is the lead Minister in these negotiations?
Stephen Doughty
These negotiations are between the two Governments. There are a range of interests at play, and a range of Ministers have been involved in the negotiations. There are equities here for the FCDO, the Ministry of Defence and other parts of Government, so it is a joint HMG negotiation.
Dr Neil Hudson (Epping Forest) (Con)
This Labour Government are making choices, claiming that they have no money, from taxing jobs, family businesses and family farms and cutting winter fuel payments for pensioners to delaying much-needed new hospitals such as Whipps Cross and the Princess Alexandra. What does the Minister say to my constituents in Epping Forest who are asking how this Government can now find billions of pounds to pay to give away British sovereign territory and, in so doing, compromise national and global security?
Stephen Doughty
I simply do not accept the premise of the hon. Gentleman’s question. We will not scrimp on national security. We will invest in our national security, we will secure our bases and we will invest in our armed forces. We will invest in our defence and we will protect the British people. We will invest in it, not scrimp on it as the previous Government did.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
Although I might have a different opinion, I always try to be respectful, and I hope that the Minister will receive my question as such. He will be aware of my opposition, and indeed the opposition on this side of the House, to the Chagos deal in terms of the citizenship and the identity of those islanders, as well as the security our base. To this, I have to add a word of caution on funding, as I see farms being attacked by the farming inheritance tax on the one hand and an open-ended cheque being given to Mauritius on the other. Will the Minister not rethink this terrible decision, or better still, given the clear division between this side of the House and his side, let us make that decision?
Stephen Doughty
Of course the House will have the right to make its decision in due course when legislation is put forward. That is only right and there will be ample scrutiny. The hon. Gentleman has always had a keen interest in the interests of the Chagossians, which I deeply respect. As I have said, there is a range of different views within the community, but their interests are very much at the heart of this. He referred citizenship, and of course they will retain their right to British citizenship, which has been in place since 2022. Many Chagossians have chosen to make their home here and to take British citizenship. That is right, and we all agree that what happened historically was wrong.
UK-US Bilateral Relationship
Stephen Doughty Excerpts(3 weeks, 3 days ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Stephen Doughty)
It is good to see you in the Chair, Sir John. I know you are also a strong supporter of the UK-US relationship. I thank all right hon. and hon. Members for their contributions, particularly the hon. Member for Dumfries and Galloway (John Cooper). I also extend my heartfelt condolences to the families of those who lost their lives in the tragic accidents in Washington DC and Pennsylvania in recent days. Our thoughts are with the American people and the people of those cities at this time. I also pay tribute to the emergency services for their dedicated work in such challenging conditions, as we saw after the terrible attacks in Las Vegas and New Orleans, and in the terrible forest fires in Los Angeles.
I am grateful to the hon. Member for securing the debate, and for his work on the Business and Trade Committee. He will not be surprised to hear that I did not agree with all his comments, but there are some areas of agreement. I certainly agree with his characterisation of the very balanced trading relationship that we have with the United States; that point was also made by other Members on both sides of the House. I agree about some of the global threats that we must work on together, and about the fundamental values that bind us together in relation to defence, security and liberty. I gently say to him that there are no “toadying diplomats”; they are motivated by a great degree of duty and service, exemplified by Dame Karen Pierce, who will be retiring shortly from her role. I would take issue with him on that.
The partnership between the United Kingdom and the United States is strong and historic, and it is understandably of huge interest to Members of this House and the wider public. We have heard reference to the important role that BAPG and others play; many individual parliamentarians’ links and histories are crucial to the relationship.
We will always do what is right for the British people, and a crucial part of that is a strong United Kingdom-US relationship. My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Edgbaston (Preet Kaur Gill) made powerful comments on that point. Our US links have a powerful role to play in delivering on many UK missions: ensuring long-term peace and security in the middle east, Europe and the Indo-Pacific; growing the economy in both our countries; delivering on security for our citizens; and propelling the tech revolution to achieve a sustainable and prosperous future for us all—to name just a few. This is a timely and important debate, and I am grateful for the many contributions. I will try my best to respond to them all.
We all recognise the extraordinary mandate that President Trump received from the American people in November. It was truly historic, as rightly emphasised by my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Steve Yemm). My hon. Friend was also right to talk about the challenges faced by the American people—indeed, his own constituents —in relation to growth in the economy, a matter that we are resolute in attempting to address as a Government. We see that election as an opportunity to engage with the United States with a renewed sense of energy, dynamism and purpose, and we have been forthright in extending our congratulations to President Trump on his victory. Indeed, the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary have reiterated their commitment to working closely with him and his Administration.
The Prime Minister spoke to the President on 26 January, and the warmth of their discussion demonstrated that the friendship between our countries is not restricted to any one political party or tradition; our relationship transcends them, as several hon. Members have rightly said. The Foreign Secretary, similarly, was delighted to speak to Secretary of State Marco Rubio on 27 January, and they expressed their eagerness to commence work together to address our many shared challenges, including the situation in the middle east, Russia’s illegal war in Ukraine and the challenges posed by China. I pay tribute to President Trump’s work on securing the ceasefire and the release of hostages, which was referred to in the debate.
Stephen Doughty
I will make some progress. I will try to come back to the right hon. Lady if I have time at the end, but a lot of points were made.
The Foreign Secretary and Secretary of State Marco Rubio also reaffirmed our enduring commitment to the AUKUS partnership. Many Opposition Members rightly referred to the depth of our defence relationship, including the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Lincoln Jopp), who did so very aptly and whom I thank for his service. The depth of that relationship remains an essential pillar of our collective security.
In an increasingly unstable world, we agree that NATO should be strengthened and defence spending increased to adapt to new threats, which is why the Prime Minister has underlined our cast-iron commitment to spend 2.5% of GDP on defence. The UK looks forward to working with President Trump to ensure that our NATO alliance keeps Americans and Europeans safe, including in regions such as the Arctic. We will not tolerate attempts to disrupt critical infrastructure or restrict freedom of navigation by our adversaries. There is no global security without Arctic security. Alongside our closest allies, we are ready to support security in that region. That is one of the reasons I recently travelled there for the Arctic Circle Assembly.
Equally, as has been rightly mentioned, including by the shadow Minister, the right hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton), our support for Ukraine is iron-clad. When the Prime Minister was in Kyiv last month, he saw at first hand the unrelenting aggression from Russia that Ukrainians face every day. As the PM said, the US has played a vital role alongside allies in supporting Ukraine. Our collective stance should be to help Ukraine to be in the strongest possible position in the months to come. I thank the shadow Minister and other right hon. and hon. Members for their support and comments on that.
A number of hon. Members have mentioned the British Indian Ocean Territory and I know many feel strongly about it. I advise them to take much of the reporting on that, especially regarding the finances, with a large pinch of salt. I will repeat what I have said in the House: the Government inherited a situation where the long-term future of the UK-US military base on Diego Garcia, which is so vital to UK and US security, was under threat. Finalising a deal means we can secure that base with strong protections, including from malign influence, that will allow the base to operate unchanged well into the next century. In close collaboration with the US—it is right that we give it time to consider—we will only agree to a deal that is in the UK’s best interests and those of our allies, and that protects our collective national security.
Stephen Doughty
I have answered many questions on Chagos. I am going to make progress, because I am conscious of the time.
Since taking office, the UK Government have shown strong international leadership on climate, and a steadfast commitment to the sustainable development goals. We remain committed to an impactful and reformed WHO. However, global issues require collective action, which is why the UK will continue to work with partners, including the US, our closest ally, to advance shared goals.
A lot of comments today rightly focused on the strength of our economic and trading partnership, which is a crucial pillar of our relationship. Strengthening that partnership with the US is a core component of the Government’s growth mission. We only have to reflect on Robert Lighthizer’s past statement that the Anglo-American trade relationship
“may be the healthiest…in the world”—
almost a decade later, the same can be said today.
Crucially, as has been said, I emphasise that we have a fair and balanced trading relationship that benefits both sides of the Atlantic. That relationship is worth more than £300 billion a year—nearly a fifth of all UK trade. We have more than a £1 trillion invested in each other’s economies, and more than 1 million Americans work for UK-owned businesses, and the same the other way. Those relationships go far beyond London and Washington DC. We heard about the important relationship with Scotland and Scotch whisky, as outlined by the hon. Member for Dumfries and Galloway, who sponsored the debate. There are strong ties in my own community in Wales. We also heard about the strong ties with Northern Ireland.
From US defence manufacturing in Bedfordshire to the close to 50,000 jobs supported by UK companies in Vice-President Vance’s home state of Ohio, the US is an extraordinarily dynamic economy with a huge amount of potential for the UK. Our countries share a determination to drive economic growth, which is the UK Government’s core aim. We are committed to open and free trade, and its crucial role in delivering economic growth.
Although we might have a different philosophical approach to tariffs, we will continue to seize opportunities to boost trade with the US in a way that promotes growth, creates jobs and aligns with the UK’s national interests. Indeed, we seek to strengthen relationships at all levels of the US economy, including with cities and states. I have had the pleasure of meeting many governors and lieutenant governors over the past few months to discuss that.
We are not going to choose between our allies, as the Prime Minister has said. It is not a case of either America or Europe. That is apparently my own family history, which I will come to later. We are inexorably bound together and face the same global threats and challenges. We have a strong will to overcome those together. Our national interest demands that we work with both, which is exactly what we will do.
I cannot end without reflecting on the vibrant links between the peoples of the United States and the United Kingdom. I am particularly proud, in that regard, of my own family ties to the United States, including my American grandfather, Harold, who fought in Europe in world war two. He came over from the Bronx in New York, in that strong tradition of service and duty that binds our two peoples together, including in the armed forces. My family history goes back to Pennsylvania in the 1700s, and I have many ties across the United States. I have visited 25 of the United States in my life, and counting. I am honoured to be the Minister with the responsibility for those relationships. As I said, those relationships exist across all of the United States and all parts of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
I am looking forward to marking the 250th anniversary of US independence next year, as well as the FIFA world cup, which will be hosted by Canada, Mexico and the US, not to mention the LA Olympics in 2028. Speaking of sports, the hon. Member for Dumfries and Galloway is, as he said, well aware of President Trump’s deep affection for Scotland, with his mother having been born on the Isle of Lewis and with his golf resort Trump Turnberry. I have some family history in Kirkcudbrightshire in Scotland, and I studied at the University of St Andrews, another key Scottish golfing location.
The President’s deep affection for our country and all its parts, as well as for our royal family, is well understood. We really welcome that affection and those special ties, which are another side of our special relationship. We also have incredible educational ties, including through the Marshall scholarship programme. I have met many of the Marshall scholars. We count a CIA director, five US ambassadors, two members of Congress, six Pulitzer prize winners, a NASA astronaut and a Nobel laureate among our Marshall alumni.
Calum Miller
The Minister is giving a wonderful description of familial and other ties. Will he address the fact that the current US Administration are of a very different nature from previous ones, and can he tell us how the Government are addressing that change?
Stephen Doughty
As I said, we are going to focus on our common agendas globally: on growth, on defence, on security and on common prospects for our peoples. That is very much what this Government are focused on, and our relationship transcends all Administrations and all parties. That has been very clear under multiple Governments in the United States and the United Kingdom in the past.
I will take the opportunity to thank our consulates for their incredible work to promote strong ties across the United States. I also thank Dame Karen Pierce, as the shadow Minister did, for her tremendous leadership as ambassador to the US. It has been a pleasure to work with her and her team. She has done an outstanding job of nurturing the relationship over the last three years through the pandemic, Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and, of course, our own elections.
Lord Mandelson, the next ambassador to the US, who I met just yesterday, will bring his extensive foreign and economic knowledge, strong business links and experience at the highest levels of Government, not least in trade, to the table. I know he will seize that new role with the same level of vigour, diligence and enthusiasm for our relationship as those who preceded him.
I conclude by saying that there is a vital and dynamic alliance between the United Kingdom and the US. We might not always agree on everything, but there is a huge amount on which we do agree. We all want our voters to feel the benefits of economic growth in their pockets. We want peace and security not just in the middle east, but in Europe and the Indo-Pacific, and globally. We want to harness the tech revolution for all our peoples.
Together, we will face those challenges. Our special relationship has endured, it continues to endure and it will endure; it is forged in blood, it is formed in common ideals and it is focused on the wellbeing and security of our citizens. It is a remarkable story, and long may it continue.
NATO Parliamentary Assembly: UK Delegation
Stephen Doughty Excerpts(4 weeks, 2 days ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Stephen Doughty)
My hon. Friend the Member for Bolton West (Phil Brickell has replaced my hon. Friend the Member for Stevenage (Kevin Bonavia) as a member of the United Kingdom delegation to the NATO Parliamentary Assembly.
My hon. Friend the Member for Smethwick (Gurinder Singh Josan) has replaced my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton North (Lucy Rigby) as a member of the United Kingdom delegation to the NATO Parliamentary Assembly.
[HCWS395]
Oral Answers to Questions
Stephen Doughty Excerpts(1 month, 2 weeks 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 month, 2 weeks 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(1 month, 3 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 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.
British Indian Ocean Territory: Sovereignty
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
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.
Commonwealth Parliamentary Association and International Committee of the Red Cross (Status) Bill [Lords]
Stephen Doughty ExcerptsWednesday 18th December 2024
(2 months, 1 week 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.