Oral Answers to Questions
Stephen Doughty Excerpts(2 days, 13 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Dr Al Pinkerton (Surrey Heath) (LD)
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Stephen Doughty)
It was fantastic to visit Gibraltar recently for its national day, and also to meet my European Union and Spanish counterparts. The agreement reached between the UK and the EU in June was welcome and significant: it will mean jobs, investment and stability, not just for Gibraltar but for the whole region. All parties have agreed to work together to finalise the treaty text and ratify the agreement as quickly as possible, and I will update the House in due course
Dr Pinkerton
Like the Minister, I had the pleasure of being in Gibraltar in the summer at the invitation of the Government, and I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I saw for myself the vital necessity of this deal to secure the economy and the social fabric of Gibraltar and, in particular, the movement of 15,000 people across the Spain-Gibraltar frontier every day. Can the Minister commit himself to bringing the treaty to the House at the first possible opportunity, so that the details can be given the fullest possible scrutiny?
Stephen Doughty
Absolutely. The hon. Gentleman mentioned the challenges that have existed at the border. I have been stuck in those queues, Mr Speaker, and you may have been as well. This deal will mean an end to that, and a new, positive relationship. Indeed, much will be positive for the economy and for all the people of Gibraltar. We will bring the treaty to the House as soon as possible—as soon as it is finalised—and it will go through the normal processes. Parliament will, of course, be able to debate its terms if it wishes to do so.
Amanda Martin (Portsmouth North) (Lab)
I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.
It was an honour to welcome Gibraltar’s First Minister to last week’s annual general meeting of the all-party parliamentary group on Gibraltar. As a cross-party group, we wholeheartedly welcome the treaty, but can the Minister assure me that it will produce economic benefits for Gibraltarians and an increase in the prospects for tourism?
Stephen Doughty
I absolutely can assure my hon. Friend. I thank her and the whole APPG for their work, cross-party, in support of Gibraltar. I know, of course, that this deal is firmly backed by the Chief Minister of Gibraltar and his Government and will bring important benefits for the economy, jobs and people of Gibraltar. As she mentions tourism, we might now see more flights coming into Gibraltar airport from elsewhere in Europe, which will be very positive for Gibraltar and the region.
Daniel Francis (Bexleyheath and Crayford) (Lab)
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Stephen Doughty)
We know that people-smuggling gangs work across borders to operate their vile trade, so we too must work across borders to disrupt their supply chains, dismantle their networks and undermine their business model. That is why we are strengthening co-operation with other countries, including through our illegal migration sanctions regime—the first of its kind in the world—and we are targeting the leaders of people-smuggling gangs wherever they are based.
Daniel Francis
I thank the Minister for his answer; I know this is an issue of great concern to my constituents across Bexleyheath and Crayford. Following last week’s west Balkans summit, could he provide an update on the measures that are being taken to reduce the number of illegal migrants being brought to the UK via the western Balkans?
Stephen Doughty
I thank my hon. Friend for his very important question, and he is absolutely right: tackling illegal migration is vital to our strategic relationship with the western Balkans. Last week, we announced new sanctions against gang leaders, passport forgers and illicit financiers, many of whom have ties to that region, and we are enhancing collaboration between our countries—for example, through the Border Police Chiefs’ Forum, the expansion of the joint migration taskforce and the deployment of UK border security officers to the western Balkans.
Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)
Does the Minister agree that foreign nationals convicted of serious drug offences in Northern Ireland should be deported without delay? Will he ensure that his Department works with international partners and prioritises swift removal agreements to stop those involved in organised immigration and drug crime re-offending on our streets?
Stephen Doughty
I absolutely agree with the sentiment of the hon. Lady’s question. She will know that in our first year in government, we deported over 5,000 foreign national offenders—a 14% increase on the previous 12 months. We are speeding up the early removal scheme so that most foreign prisoners can be deported after serving 30%, rather than the previous 50%, of their custodial sentence.
Sir Julian Smith (Skipton and Ripon) (Con)
Jack Rankin (Windsor) (Con)
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Stephen Doughty)
We have secured a deal that will protect the operation of the UK-US base on Diego Garcia well into the next century. The payments made under the deal will be split between the Foreign Office and the Ministry of Defence, and published in the annual accounts of each Department.
Stephen Doughty
As I have said, that will be published in the annual accounts of each Department.
Calum Miller (Bicester and Woodstock) (LD)
In the United States, President Trump continues to use his public power to advance his private financial interests. In the UK, as well as rooting out traitors like Nathan Gill, who take funds from our enemies, we must prevent this corrosive cronyism from entering our politics. I wrote yesterday to the new Ethics and Integrity Commission, calling on it to investigate whether Department for Culture, Media and Sport officials lobbied for Trump’s golf courses. I intend to bring a Bill to this place that would create enhanced protections against UK Ministers and officials lobbying for foreign powers. Will the Secretary of State commit to supporting the principle of the Bill?
Stephen Doughty
Not having seen the hon. Member’s proposals, I will not comment on them at this stage, but we take all evidence of foreign interference in this country very seriously. I work closely with Ministers across Government, including the Home Office and the Security Minister, to keep these issues under regular assessment.
John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)
Pippa Heylings (South Cambridgeshire) (LD)
Stephen Doughty
The hon. Member is a passionate advocate on these issues; we debated them just the other day in Westminster Hall. The UK remains committed to providing international climate finance, now and in the future, and to playing our part, alongside other developed countries and climate finance providers. We are committed to delivering £11.6 billion in international climate finance by the end of 2025-26.
Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)
Richard Tice (Boston and Skegness) (Reform)
Stephen Doughty
I am not going to comment on legal proceedings, but the hon. Gentleman knows full well that this had to be a treaty negotiated between the UK and Mauritius—that is the basis on which it is done. We absolutely recognise the historic wrongs done to the Chagossian people. I have engaged with Chagossian communities on a number of occasions and will continue to do so through our new contact group.
Mr Luke Charters (York Outer) (Lab)
Stephen Doughty
My hon. Friend will know that we do not comment on future sanctions designations, but we are, as the Foreign Secretary said, absolutely committed to choking off Russia’s war machine and bringing Putin to the table. That is why our sanctions alongside others have denied Russia access to at least £450 billion since February 2022, which would have funded two more years of this illegal and barbarous war. We will not hesitate to act where we can and we will work with others in that endeavour.
Vikki Slade (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)
Seamus Logan (Aberdeenshire North and Moray East) (SNP)
Last week the Chancellor accepted that Brexit has caused huge damage to the economy. This week sources suggest that the Prime Minister is being advised to go further in his realignment with the European Union, as the Office for Budget Responsibility is reportedly forecasting a new black hole of around £20 billion—again showing the impact of Brexit on growth. Is the Foreign Secretary ready to admit that no matter how people try to spin it, Brexit has been an all-out disaster for Scotland and these islands?
Stephen Doughty
We have had no hesitation in exposing the impacts of the botched Brexit deal that the previous Government made. That is exactly why we have reset our relationship with the EU and achieved important agreements at the May summit. It is also why the Minister for the Cabinet Office, myself and others are working to deliver on that deal to ensure benefits for our businesses, consumers and people across this country.
Rachel Gilmour (Tiverton and Minehead) (LD)
I refer Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. When I was in Ukraine last month I met senior Ukrainian figures, all of whom told me the same thing: they need more support from Europe to win this war. With that in mind, will the Foreign Secretary finally commit to seizing the £25 billion-worth of frozen Russian assets held in the UK and deploying them to Ukraine in its hour of need?
Stephen Doughty
I absolutely agree that we need to get Ukraine every support that it needs. Our support is iron-clad, which is why we hosted the coalition of the willing on Thursday. Members will have heard the Foreign Secretary say that we are working closely with partners to ensure that Russia pays for the damage it has caused, and we will find the lawful and most effective ways to do that.
Dame Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)
Karim Ennarah is an internationally recognised human rights activist who has been subjected to a travel ban by Egypt and has been stuck there since 2020. What is the Foreign Office doing—or what can it do—to ensure that he is able to come to the UK to join his wife in my constituency?
Johanna Baxter (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (Lab)
Last month, ahead of the UN General Assembly, I had the honour of welcoming Vlad, Valeriia and Roman: three young children who were injured and abducted by Russia during Putin’s illegal invasion of Ukraine. I thank you, Mr. Speaker, and my hon. Friend the Minister for taking time out of your busy days to meet those children and to hear at first hand the horrors they have been through, as well as their inspiring stories. Will the Minister update the House on what discussions were held at the UN General Assembly on the unlawful deportation of Ukrainian children? What further support is being provided to Ukraine to aid their recovery?
Stephen Doughty
It genuinely was an honour to meet the three young people my hon. Friend mentioned. As she said, not only were their stories shocking, but they were inspiring in their courage. I assure her that we continue to use every forum, including the United Nations, and all our discussions with partners and allies. I particularly commend the First Lady’s initiatives on this issue. We want to see those young people returned—it is one of the most heinous aspects of Russia’s illegal and barbarous war in Ukraine.
Marie Goldman (Chelmsford) (LD)
The British Council is in dire financial straits. If it disappears, so will the invaluable soft power that it wields. Will the Foreign Secretary commit to meeting the chief executive of the British Council to discuss that as soon as possible?
Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill
Stephen Doughty ExcerptsMonday 20th October 2025
(1 week, 3 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill 2024-26 View all Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Committee of the whole House Amendments as at 20 October 2025 - (20 Oct 2025)
Wendy Morton
My hon. Friend is 100% right, and that is one of the reasons why we oppose this Bill and have done so from the very start.
The promises given by Ministers that nothing can happen in the Chagos archipelago that threatens our interests are already being undermined. Mauritius is in discussions with India about a security role that it can play in the archipelago, and the UK is not even in the room. If these discussions with a friendly country are taking place without the UK, one can only wonder what discussions are taking place in secret with China and Russia. There has been a report that China is already negotiating with Mauritius for Peros Banhos. When he speaks, perhaps the Minister can tell us what he knows about that.
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Stephen Doughty)
I want to say on that point that this is absolute nonsense. Is the shadow Minister willing to provide any evidence that that is going to take place? This treaty protects the security of the outer islands and expressly prohibits foreign forces building bases on them—something on which her Government did not succeed in their negotiations.
Wendy Morton
I am grateful to the Minister, but can he actually give me the reassurance that no discussions are taking place? Perhaps he can answer that question when he responds to the debate later.
The promises given by Ministers that nothing can happen in the Chagos archipelago that threatens our interests are already being undermined. If these discussions with a friendly country are taking place without the UK, I can only wonder what discussions are taking place in secret. If such discussions are taking place, that would undermine the assurances Ministers have given to this House and be an act of bad faith on the part of Mauritius. The House knows that this Government kowtow to the Chinese Communist party, leading it to threaten our interests here. Now, they are failing to take seriously the warnings about China, and the threats it poses to Diego Garcia, our military assets and our interests in the Indo-Pacific.
Wendy Morton
I think my right hon. Friend makes some very interesting points, and perhaps not surprisingly, one might ask the question: are the Government sleeping with the enemy here?
Wendy Morton
If the Minister will allow me, I will just finish this point. The key thing we are asking for is a reassurance from the Minister, and he will have more than ample opportunity later to respond to the points I am making.
Stephen Doughty
I thank the shadow Minister for giving way, but she and the right hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness (Graham Stuart) have raised China, Russia and Iran. Why does she think that the United States, our closest security ally, backs this deal if there is any possibility of any of the fantasy things she is suggesting taking place. They cannot take place, because the treaty prevents them. She clearly has not read it.
Wendy Morton
I am not sure where the hon. Gentleman has been for the past year and several months, but we have gone over this time and again in this Chamber. There was no legal basis. We stopped—[Interruption.] Maybe I will repeat this very slowly for his benefit: we stopped the negotiations.
Stephen Doughty
I thank the shadow Minister for giving way, but I must, Ms Nokes, correct the record here. This has been a repeated argument, by the shadow Minister and others, claiming that the then Government stopped the negotiations. They did not. In fact, they carried them on. There was a gov.uk statement on 24 February reflecting the continuing of the negotiations by the former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Richmond and Northallerton (Rishi Sunak). Indeed, they carried on into May, just before the election. It is there in writing on the previous Government’s own website.
Stephen Doughty
I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman has the gall to come here and talk about national security today, when the former leader of his party in Wales admitted to taking bribes from Russia, and when again he has been using talking points that come right from the Kremlin in blaming NATO for Russia’s invasion of Ukraine—absolutely shameful. The Mauritian Attorney General was interviewed on Mauritian TV today, and he said regarding the hon. Gentleman’s tweets claiming that Mauritius was negotiating a lease on Peros Banhos that that was a gross falsehood and a political gimmick. The hon. Gentleman talks about the United States. The Secretary of War, Secretary Hegseth, said:
“Diego Garcia is a vital military base for the United States.
The UK’s…deal with Mauritius secures the operational capabilities of the base and key US national security interests in the region.
We are confident the base is protected for many years ahead.”
Why is the United States backing this deal, if anything that the hon. Gentleman says is true?
Nigel Farage
I can assure you that America is not backing this deal. What it is saying is, “What we have is what we hold.” That is the American attitude at the moment, but as I said, when it wakes up to the satellite observation deal done with India already, as reported in The Economic Times of India on 12 September this year, and once you realise—
Graham Stuart
It might be a joint base technically, but what is it in reality? I would love an intervention from the Defence Minister; he could tell us. How much do we use it operationally, because there are thousands of Americans there and, as I understand it—unless he corrects me—at most dozens of Brits. In other words, it is a United States base on sovereign UK territory that we will pay tens of billions of pounds for over the next 100 years to provide it to the Americans for free. It makes no sense, and I do not see why we have had no answer from Ministers as to why that is a sensible use of public money.
Graham Stuart
I will give way to the Minister and then to my right hon. Friend.
Stephen Doughty
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his generous comments. He and I have always had robust but friendly discussions on many issues. However, I do have to correct him on this point. The US pays for the operations, and the value to the British taxpayer, the US taxpayer and, indeed, all our allies is priceless in that it protects the people of this country from multiple threats, so what he says simply does not make sense.
Graham Stuart
The United States plays a critical role as a member of NATO and as a key ally—if not the key ally—of ours, but despite the priceless nature of the service it provides, we do not typically pay for it. We do not normally pay for its bases; we pay for our own.
Danny Kruger
I understand, Madam Chairman, and of course you are quite right. The point I was making is that there has never been a Government who are so reluctant to govern as the one we have today. We have heard from hon. Members how baffling the decision is to surrender the Chagos islands. The only rational reason that could account for it is some kind of secret deal with China. I do not know if that is the case. The Government’s obeisance to international law might well trump national sovereignty, and in fact there is no rational calculation behind this decision except that of submission to their ideas of international law.
Stephen Doughty
Again, I have to take serious issue with what the hon. Gentleman is suggesting. If what he is suggesting is true, why do the United States, our Five Eyes partners, and other key allies support this deal? It protects our national security, and it secures the base on Diego Garcia. Why would they support it? There is no secret deal—this is absolute nonsense.
Danny Kruger
I am grateful to the Minister. I suspect there has been a private conversation with the American Government as well, and that in recognition of the fait accompli that this Government have yielded to Mauritius, the Americans have extended this somewhat limited statement of support for the deal as some kind of favour to the Prime Minister, in exchange for support he has given them on other matters. The fact is that this deal is bad for Britain and bad for Britain’s sovereignty, and behind the scenes we know that the Americans do not support it.
I want to talk about secret deals, because my only addition to the debate—very powerful points have been made already—is to say that secret deals have been done with respect to the Chagos islands in the past. Under the 30-year rule, archival evidence has come out recently of a secret deal with respect to the base at Diego Garcia between the British Government of the day—the Thatcher Government—and the American Administration. That deal was done in the national interest. The renewal of the nuclear deterrent—the Trident programme—was being set up, and there was an agreement with the Americans whereby they could expand their access and the use of Diego Garcia in exchange for a reduction in the fee, essentially, that the British Government were charged for collaboration on the Trident programme. We had to pay significantly less than we would have paid otherwise because of the expanded access that we were giving to the Americans in those years. It was called the Diego-Trident package in the negotiations and the correspondence between the British and the Americans at that time. It was kept quiet for understandable reasons, and we only know about it now. I worry that there is a similar lack of transparency around this deal because, as I say, it cannot possibly be a deal that is in the national interest.
Dr Evans
As ever, my learned right hon. Friend has pipped me to the punch. That is exactly a good example of the kind of sites we are worried about. What has that meant? We have taken on British nationals overseas and invited them in to give them security, because they feared for political interference and, worse still, for the safety of themselves and their families.
We are not doing our duties if we are not thinking about these things, because, as we have already seen, it is hard enough to predict things in two or three years’ time, let alone 100 years. At that point, as it is written, we will get the best offer, but it will be only offered to us. We could be outstripped by China, Russia or a BRIC country in the future—we do not know; it is 100 years away—and there is no mechanism to solve that. Worse still, Mauritius could simply say, “We do not want a base here at all,” and there is nothing in this Bill that would stop that. The Government repeatedly have been asked those questions, and they cannot set that out. That is why new clause 2 asks for those impacts to be considered and looked at.
New clause 3 would move the marine protected area. I will return to a point I made earlier. The fact is that when Britain and the United Kingdom were taken under UNCLOS in 2010 by Mauritius under annex VII, we wanted to implement protections in the area. Mauritius felt that that impeded on its ability to make its own decisions, which the court found in favour of, and it also wanted to fish in the area. Hang on a second! We are putting weaknesses into this Bill when we know that Mauritius has set its intent. I hope it has moved on, as the debate on climate has, but this new clause would be a guarantee to ensure that that has been thought about.
Let me turn to new clause 5. I appreciate the Minister stepping up, because there has already been debate about the Peros Banhos islands, and he has said there are no concerns that they will be leased to China. Let us be real: this Bill has only just come out—the ink is barely dry—and we already hear stories. Many journalists have already talked about this issue. Maybe I am wrong, but that shows the examples of what could and will come without paying attention to the security and the geopolitical and strategic advantage that these islands have, which my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for South Shropshire (Stuart Anderson) talked about. All new clause 5 asks us to do is ensure that that is reported on and looked at. Again, there is a dereliction of duty by not having that reported.
I could go on, because there are many more amendments, but the salient points in this debate have been made. All the amendments tabled in the names of Conservatives— and, to be fair, in the names of Members of many other Opposition parties—ask for one simple thing: transparency and explanation. They ask for a simple way of seeing what the legal advice does and where the financial outcome comes.
Dr Evans
The Minister is nodding along, but there must be something wrong if the public and Opposition Members cannot simply understand the arguments for what is being put in place. We cannot see the wood for the trees. It is a Government’s duty to show those arguments, and I look forward to the Minister doing that in his response and putting these arguments to bed once and for all. Otherwise, the British public will not forgive him.
Sammy Wilson
A deal of such implication, one would have thought, would have been hotly debated in this House, yet as has been pointed out, there has been no attempt to defend it by the Government. In fact, one could hardly call this a debate—it has all been one-sided. In a debate, people usually argue in favour of whatever the proposal happens to be and listen to and rebut the arguments from the other side. We have had no rebuttal from the other side—the Government—today, despite the fact that this is such an important deal.
For some people outside the House, this deal might seem to be an unimportant issue—where are the Chagos islands, and why do they matter? However, even if the attitude taken by Government Members is to say, “Our constituents are not all that interested in the issues around the Chagos islands,” there are issues with this deal that have been raised this evening that should concern them all.
Let us look at the issues, because they are addressed by the amendments. The first is human rights—the human rights of the people who were displaced in the 1960s and who are ignored in this deal. Their rights to self-determination and to decide where they live are being ignored, yet we are not getting any response from the Government—the party that talks about human rights all the time. They say that we cannot leave the European convention on human rights because human rights are so important, but they are ignoring the human rights of the people who are affected by this deal.
Sammy Wilson
Since we are going to have a debate, I will listen to the Minister.
Stephen Doughty
I thank the right hon. Member for giving way. He says that he wants a debate, and I have given a number of rebuttals. He mentions the Chagossians, whom I will come to in my concluding remarks. I respect what he has to say, but I point him to remarks from the Chagos Refugees Group, which said in its communiqué to all of us: “We urge all Members of Parliament to support the Bill at its final stages and deliver long overdue justice to all our people. Passing this Bill will mark a turning point and the moment when Parliament stands on the right side of history and begins to restore what was unjustly taken from us.” There are a range of views within the Chagossian community, and I think it is important that those are put on the record.
Sammy Wilson
Of course there are many who take a totally different point of view and whose wishes are not reflected in this Bill. The amendments that have been tabled to seek to remedy that situation are being ignored and opposed by the Government.
The second issue is the economy. On a regular basis, we hear how difficult the fiscal position is for this country—black holes we have to fill by taking money off pensioners, reducing benefits, cutting here and cutting there, and taxing people to the hilt. Yet when amendments are tabled that simply request transparency and the opportunity to look at the expenditure involved in this treaty, we hear no support from the Government. Either we are concerned about the fiscal position of this country or we are not. I would suggest that £35 billion—and rising—is a significant figure that we should be looking at.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
Thank you for allowing me to speak on this issue once again, Ms Ghani. I will prefix my comments with this. It is always good to see the Ministers—the Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, the hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty) and the Minister for Defence Readiness and Industry, the hon. Member for Plymouth Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard)—in their place. They are both honourable men whose friendship I value. Being ever respectful, and with great respect to both hon. Gentlemen, I wish to make some comments that will be very contrary to what they have put forward today.
It will be no surprise that I rise at the last hour and as the last Back-Bench speaker—that is often the case, but none the less it is always a pleasure to make a contribution —to ask the Government again to reconsider their decision and ask the Committee to oppose the Bill, even though I know that the numbers game does not stack up.
As we all know, the treaty provides for Mauritius to exercise full sovereignty over the Chagos archipelago, with the UK exercising rights on Diego Garcia during an initial 99-year period. Over those 99 years, the UK will pay Mauritius a total of around £3.4 billion in 2025-26 prices, and that will probably rise. At a time when the Government are taxing farmers, taxing widows’ pensions and taxing the middle class into oblivion, handing over £3.4 billion with a benefit that is not tangible is unacceptable. Our constituents will be worse off in the next financial year. Indeed, a typical British family are as much as £15,000 a year poorer than they were five years ago, according to recent Telegraph Money analysis. Why, then, have we entered into this agreement, which may fluctuate and cost substantially more than the figure that has been predicted?
I want to make it clear that I believe this treaty should be renegotiated from beginning to end, but if the Bill is to go ahead, it is essential that any increases in payments should come through this House, and that whatever Government are in place at that time should present that. I therefore support new clause 1, which would give certainty and security that increases would not take place without the approval of this House.
Turning to new clauses 2, 5 and 7, I have long stated that there are now substantial risks to our military bases, and that has been reiterated by every person bar one in the Committee today. I am anxious to understand our legal standing on this. I believe it is right and proper for the Committee to understand the nature of how renting from Mauritius will give us the safety and security needed to ensure that those stationed on the base, or relying on support from the base in that area, will not feel vulnerable or exposed. I believe that this deal does expose us, and that we need to be very much aware of our standing and take the necessary steps. That begins with having full knowledge and not simply empty assurances. The recent debacle with the Chinese spies decisions has shown that openness, transparency and accountability are needed even more tonight than they have been in the other statements and urgent questions today. New clause 2 would enforce that as a minimum.
New clause 9 is similar to new clause 8, tabled by the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim (Jim Allister) and my right hon. Friend the Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson). I support new clause 9, given its similarity to the new clause brought forward by my Northern Ireland colleagues, who are intimately aware of how issues on the ground can be vastly different from those that are reported. This addition to ensure that a report is made on the compliance of the treaty and the Act with the UN General Assembly resolutions on decolonisation is vital and, I believe, underlines the words of support that have been given to those in the area who are fearful of the removal of British influence and support and fearful of the Mauritian ideals, which were flagged by our American allies in their human rights report in 2023.
As the chair of the all-party parliamentary group on international freedom of religion or belief, I know that the two issues of human rights and persecution are married together as one, because when we highlight the issue of human rights, we also highlight the issue of persecution of religious beliefs, and vice versa. I really have to express some concerns over human rights in this context. I understand that the Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, the hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth will reply to the debate. Although I believe he understands and believes in these issues as strongly as I do, I still have great concerns about human rights. It is essential that we do not simply hand over control and abandon not just the military base but all in the region who have relied on our support and friendship over the years.
Unfortunately, this has been a bad treaty from beginning to end. Our Chagossian citizens remain unhappy, our armed forces remain unhappy and the families who are footing the bill are unhappy. I believe that the Government have made the wrong decision on this. The recent Chinese debacle has heightened the need to continue to have boots on the ground and eyes wide open against those who would seek to thwart British interests and the interests of freedom and democracy worldwide. We have recently seen the result of appeasement when the Israeli Deputy Prime Minister highlighted the difficulties brought about by this Government’s decision to recognise terrorism and a Palestinian state with no borders, no working non-terrorist Government and no social care system. The handing over of Chagos and renting it back will prove to be a costly and dangerous exercise in capitulation, and even at this very late stage I urge the Government to think again and, at the very least, accept additional protection for the sake of all our collective security.
Stephen Doughty
I thank all hon. and right hon. Members for their contributions. I will attempt to respond to the specifics of the amendments and new clauses in due course, but I want to come back to some of the fundamental points that have been raised during the debate first, and I also want to respond to some of the specific questions that were raised.
With the exception of some genuine questions in relation to the Chagossians, the MPA and the environmental protections, and the implementation of this treaty, it was a shame to see the rehash of the same arguments that were made on Second Reading. There were some outrageous and nonsensical arguments and claims, particularly relating to the costs and to other matters, which I will come to.
I was shocked by some of the anti-American, conspiracy-fuelled nonsense that we heard at various points during the debate. The base is critical to the United Kingdom, the United States, our allies and our national security, and the Bill and the treaty protect the functioning of that base. It does not surrender it; it secures it into the future. This is a Government who inherited a mess from the former Ministers on the Opposition Benches. We are getting stuff done. We are a patriotic Government; our first duty is to protect the national security of this country, and that is why we have got this deal done. It is why it is backed by the United States. It is why it is backed by our Five Eyes partners. It is absolutely crucial to protect the British people and our allies.
We have been very transparent about the reasons for it, and they are the exact opposite of what has been suggested. I come back, as I always have done, to the fundamental question: if there were not a problem and a risk to the operations of this crucial base, why did the previous Government start the negotiations, why did they continue them through 11 rounds of negotiations, and why did they continue them right up until the general election? Those are the facts.
Stephen Doughty
I will happily take interventions, but first I want to respond to the points that have been made. This agreement has been backed by our key allies and international partners, including the US and our Five Eyes allies. India, Japan and South Korea have also made clear their strong support.
Many questions were asked about the robust security provisions that we have in place to protect the UK and the base for decades to come. The treaty and the Bill secure full operational control of Diego Garcia, a strict ban on foreign security forces across the archipelago and an effective veto on any activity that threatens the base on Diego Garcia. It has been welcomed by the International Agreements Committee and the International Relations and Development Committee in the other place, which said that they
“were assured that the Agreement preserves the UK’s and the US’s freedom of action.”
The legal rationale has been referred to many times, but legally binding provisional measures from the courts could have come within weeks, for example, affecting our ability to patrol the waters around Diego Garcia, and even if we did not comply, international organisations and other countries would. We have set out the legal rationale on a number of occasions. We have been very clear. We also published documents around it.
Stephen Doughty
I will respond to some points first. Hon. Members have had plenty of time to make their case. I have also responded to many of their points during the course of the debate, and I am going to respond to the questions.
China has been raised erroneously on many occasions, but we have negotiated robust security provisions to protect the UK and the base for decades to come, and that includes a strict ban on any foreign security forces, including the Chinese, across the archipelago.
The question of finances was raised by a number of Members, and indeed a number of the amendments refer to it. I have to be absolutely clear, as I was on Second Reading: the £30 billion to £35 billion figure quoted by some from the Opposition is totally inaccurate and wildly misleading. It is utterly wrong to ignore the effects of inflation and the changing value of money on the real costs of a deal that lasts 99 years. We published the full costs alongside the treaty. [Hon. Members: “How much?] They ask how much. I have been very clear about that throughout the debate and at the earlier stages. The average cost per year in today’s money is £101 million, and the net present value of payments under the treaty is £3.4 billion. Just for comparison, the costs compare favourably to other international basing agreements. France, for example, as I said, recently announced an €85 million a year deal with Djibouti. This base is much larger and has much more capabilities, so it compares very favourably.
Conservative Members ask about costs. The total expected cost of the treaty using that NPV methodology, which is the same that has been agreed by the Government Actuary’s Department and others, is just over one third of the value lost by the Department for Health and Social Care under their Governments on PPE that was wasted in the first year of the pandemic, if they want to talk about costs and wasting money. This is a clear investment in our national security. We will not scrimp on our national security, and we will not apologise for keeping our base safe.
Stephen Doughty
I have been clear throughout. We have set and published the methodology. It has been backed by the Office for Budget Responsibility, the statistics regulator and others, and I am happy to set that all out again in writing for the hon. Member if that would be helpful.
I was quite surprised to hear some of the unfortunate remarks made by some Members about the United States and its commitment to this base. The United States pays for the operating costs. We have a crucial national security relationship, which keeps us, the United States and our allies safe. This is a joint base on Diego Garcia. It is absolutely right that those arrangements are in place. As I said, the value from the capability of the base is priceless. This is absolutely the right investment to make.
I was appalled by some of the comments being made. I remind the Committee that President Trump, Secretary of War Hegseth and Secretary Rubio have publicly supported the treaty, as have Five Eyes partners and others.
Stephen Doughty
No, I will not give way to the hon. Member. He was not even here throughout the debate. His leader, the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage), is missing in action—oh, he’s turned up now. He came up with so many figures throughout this process, but he has finally turned up; it is good to see him here.
Questions were raised about the Chagossians, and I want to respond to them seriously because I recognise, as I have done, the very sincere feelings that are felt among different parts of the Chagossian community. We have heard a range of views expressed today by different Members, and I acknowledge the Chagossians who are here in the Gallery. I understand many of them will not support this treaty, but other Chagossians and Chagossian groups do support it, as we have heard during the debate. But I repeat again for the record that the Government deeply regret the way Chagossians were removed from the islands. We are committed to building a relationship that is built on respect and acknowledgment of the wrongs of the past. The negotiations were between the UK and Mauritius, with our priority being to secure full operation of the base on Diego Garcia, but we will finance a new trust fund for Mauritius to use in support of the Chagossian communities. We will work to start a new programme of visits, including to Diego Garcia. Of course, Mauritius will be able to develop a programme of resettlement on the islands other than Diego Garcia. We will continue our support to Chagossians living in the UK through new and existing projects.
Mike Kane
I hope the whole Committee can unite around this point. I pay tribute to the Chagossians in the United Kingdom for the contribution they make to the schools in their communities and to the Catholic churches where they live and, in my constituency, for their work at Wythenshawe hospital and Manchester airport—it is second to none. They are welcome here, and we value them very much, despite our political differences in this Chamber.
Stephen Doughty
I completely and wholeheartedly associate myself with those comments from my hon. Friend. I know he has been a passionate advocate for Chagossians in the UK, and particularly in his constituency, over many years. We have spoken about this matter many times, and I know he and other Members speak passionately on the matter.
Sir Edward Leigh
Will the Minister reply to the point made by the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Dr Pinkerton), myself and others that not in the last 100 years since the exchange of colonies after the first world war has a people been transferred from the sovereignty of one empire to another without being properly consulted?
Stephen Doughty
The right hon. Member knows that we regret what happened historically in relation to the Chagos Islands. He will also know that the islands are not permanently inhabited. That was necessarily a negotiation between the United Kingdom and Mauritius.
Let me respond to the many points about the environment, on which many amendments were tabled. We are absolutely clear that the United Kingdom and Mauritius are committed to protecting one of the world’s most important marine environments. Indeed, the Mauritian Prime Minister met the former Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my right hon. Friend the Member for Streatham and Croydon North (Steve Reed), in the margins of the third United Nations ocean conference in Nice on 9 June, where he reaffirmed his commitment to the creation of that marine protected area around the Chagos archipelago. That will be supported by an enhanced partnership with us. The treaty has been welcomed by leading conservation NGOs, including the Zoological Society of London. We continue to work with Mauritius on the implementation of that measure. We are considering seriously the many genuine concerns that right hon. and hon. Members, including the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee and members of the Environmental Audit Committee, have raised. They are serious and important questions, and I assure the Committee that we are taking them seriously, and I will try to update the House on them in due course.
Graham Stuart
I am grateful to the Minister for giving way—he is being very generous. In 2017, the clear position was that the International Court of Justice was not in a position to adjudicate on the relationship between us and a member of the Commonwealth. Has that changed, and, if so, when?
Stephen Doughty
We have been very clear about the legal position and the legal risk. The right hon. Gentleman’s Government knew this; it is why they started the process. I do not want to detain the Committee by going through all the arguments that I made on Second Reading—[Interruption.] But he knows that we faced the comprehensive rejection of our arguments at the ICJ in 2019, we lost votes at the UN General Assembly, we had the maritime delineation judgment binding on Mauritius and the Maldives—[Interruption.]
Stephen Doughty
Thank you, Madam Chairman. The Opposition ask questions and then make so much noise—they do not even want to hear the answers.
I have mentioned the obligations placed on the BIOT Administration by UN bodies to cease specific activities. I have mentioned the series of procedural complications and blockages at international organisations, including the comprehensive nuclear-test-ban treaty. There are many examples of clear risks. I have explained before the potential under annex VII of UNCLOS—
Stephen Doughty
The hon. Gentleman chunters “potential”, but is he willing to gamble with our national security? Is he willing to gamble on the operational effect? [Interruption.] Oh, he is willing to gamble! I find it absolutely extraordinary that he is willing to gamble with our national security and that of our allies. That is exactly why the United States and our Five Eyes partners back this deal: it settles that debate.
I will turn to the amendments. The right hon. Member for Witham (Priti Patel) tabled amendments 1, 2 and 7 and new clause 2 on the publication of legal advice. She will know from her time in government that it is highly unusual for the Government to publish legal advice that they have obtained. That advice is privileged, and it is important that the Government are able to take frank and confidential advice, as she well knows. In some circumstances, the Government may publish a statement of their legal position, as we did in the case of the Diego Garcia treaty, on the day it was signed. As I have repeatedly explained—Members keep chuntering about it—if a long-term deal is not reached between the UK and Mauritius, it is highly likely that further wide-ranging litigation would be brought quickly by Mauritius against the UK. It might include, for example, further arbitral proceedings against the UK under annex VII of the UN convention on the law of the sea. A judgment would be binding on the UK.
Let me turn to amendments 11 and 14. The hon. Member for Clacton, who has finally turned up but is not even listening, tabled several amendments that appear to serve no function other than wasting Government and parliamentary time. The public consultation proposed in amendment 11, and the impact assessment, would be needlessly costly and time-consuming. They would only confirm the conclusion—on which he had no answers—already reached by our closest ally, the United States, by the International Agreements Committee and the International Relations and Defence Committee, and by our Five Eyes partners. The public already know that the treaty secures the future of the critical base on Diego Garcia. The strategic value has been debated at length and is well understood. We are not willing to gamble with our national security, even if the Member for Clacton is willing to. Quite frankly, he has some gall to turn up after his comments on NATO and Russia—I find it quite extraordinary.
In amendment 13, the hon. Member for Clacton offers an ill-conceived proposal that would keep Diego Garcia listed as an overseas territory while accepting that His Majesty the King would no longer be sovereign. Not only is that constitutionally inaccurate, but in the context of the British Nationality Act 1981 it would have serious consequences for the nationality rights of Chagossians born on different islands in the archipelago. Surely his intention cannot be for individuals born on Diego Garcia to be treated differently from those born on Peros Banhos or the Salomon Islands.
Amendments 3, 4, 5 and 6, tabled by the right hon. Member for Witham and amendment 8 tabled by the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Dr Pinkerton), seek to change or remove the statutory powers to make an Order in Council. It is, of course, absolutely right that Parliament should be able to scrutinise the use of power, which is why the Bill provides for the negative procedure to be used. The vast majority of changes that the Government will make using that power will be technical and operational amendments on matters to ensure that our domestic law is consistent with the new status of Diego Garcia—those are matters as varied as police pensions, copyright law, and changes to student finance. The proposed amendments would mean that the House would be obliged to spend valuable parliamentary time on each change to legislation for 99 years. Members surely cannot wish us to spend that amount of time on all those things, and that approach is consistent with powers taken to amend existing legislation in previously comparable situations.
New clauses 1, 11, and 10 regard the prior approval of payments. I have set out clearly the costs, and the absolutely nonsensical figures that have been put forward by the Opposition and the hon. Member for Clacton, and we wholly reject the new clauses. It is entirely usual and proper for payments under international treaties to be made under the royal prerogative, and requiring a separate distinct vote before payments can be made would create unacceptable risk for the long-term sustainability of the treaty. Without the certainty that the Bill and the treaty provide, the UK and US military would not be able to invest in vital capabilities. That would have major operational implications for the base. On new clause 11 tabled by the hon. Member for Surrey Heath, the House of Commons will scrutinise our annual estimates in the usual way, and spending under the treaty will be included in that process. New clause 10 is not necessary either.
New clauses 3, 4 and 9 are on the marine protected area. There is no requirement for the UK to consent to Mauritius establishing such an area or to its management, and that would be inconsistent with the treaty. Although the UK will be playing a different role in respect of the future MPA, both the UK and Mauritius remain committed to protecting that vital marine environment. That is why, under the terms of the treaty, we will provide technical support and assistance to Mauritius, in accordance with a separate written instrument. We will not make any additional direct payments to Mauritius as part of that activity.
On Chagossians and the right of self-determination, amendments 9 and 10, and new clauses 7, 8, 12, 13, and 14 concern the Chagossian community, and I understand and share the strength of feeling on the wider subject, and the historical treatment of the Chagossian communities. That is why the Government have put the preservation of nationality rights at the heart of the Bill. I am sympathetic to the concerns put forward about resettlement. I understand the intention of amendment 9, but it is not necessary. Under the agreement we have already agreed that Mauritius will be able to develop a programme of resettlement on islands other than Diego Garcia—I refer the hon. Member for Surrey Heath to comments from Olivier Bancoult and the Chagos Refugees Group. They have been clear that that is why they support this measure, and are urging us all to support the treaty. I also understand the questions on consultation, but as I have said, those negotiations were between the UK and Mauritius. The islands that make up BIOT do not have, and never have had, a settled population and have never been self-governing. No question of self-determination for a population therefore arises now.
New clauses 5, 6, 15 and 17 relate to national security issues, but they are simply not needed because the treaty protects our national security and secures the base. We have maintained full operational control of Diego Garcia with all the necessary rights and authorities, as well as a series of additional protections. In closing, the Bill and the treaty have been thoroughly scrutinised—
Several hon. Members rose—
Stephen Doughty
No, I am not going to give way now. There have been plenty of debates and questions, and plenty of discussion. The Government have provided all the information necessary for Parliament to hold us to account, including publishing the full costs of the treaty and the legal rationale for the deal. The International Agreements Committee and the International Relations and Defence Committee have confirmed their agreement that the Bill does what we have set out, and the Government do not take risks with our national security, as the Opposition or Reform would do. That has been our priority throughout. I reject the amendments and urge the passage of the Bill.
Priti Patel
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment proposed: 7, in clause 1, page 1, line 7, leave out subsection (2) and insert—
“(1A) The Treaty and sections 2 to 4 of this Act do not come into force until the Secretary of State lays before Parliament a memorandum on the obligations under international law which require the UK to cede sovereignty of the British Indian Ocean Territory to the Government of Mauritius.
(1B) The memorandum specified in subsection (1) must include—
(a) a summary of the legal advice received by the UK Government on this issue;
(b) an analysis of the status of UK's sovereignty over the British Indian Ocean Territory under international law;
(c) the legal argument for the cessation of British sovereignty over the British Indian Ocean Territory; and
(d) the risks which the UK Government may have faced had it not reached an agreement with the Government of Mauritius.
(1C) The report specified in subsections (1A) and (1B) must be laid before Parliament no later than two months after this Act receives Royal Assent.”—(Priti Patel.)
Question put, That the amendment be made.
COP30: Food System Transformation
Stephen Doughty Excerpts(2 weeks, 2 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 a pleasure to have you in the Chair today, Mrs Harris. I thank the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Pippa Heylings) for her work on climate and food systems, not just in this place but throughout her career, and I acknowledge her huge experience of these issues.
In response to the shadow Minister, the right hon. Member for Wetherby and Easingwold (Sir Alec Shelbrooke), this is absolutely a priority for the Government at COP30, and more broadly, because how we grow, trade and consume food will shape whether the future is secure, sustainable and fair for farmers, communities and the planet.
When I speak of farmers and communities, I am speaking of farmers and communities here in the UK and abroad. We are engaged in a global endeavour. In my past career in the international development and humanitarian sector, I saw the impact of climate change and food insecurity on communities. I remember being in Malawi during the middle of a very serious food crisis and period of insecurity, where I saw the steps farmers were taking to make agriculture more resilient and the devastating impacts on people there.
In recent weeks I have met some of our leading climate scientists who are about to travel down to Antarctica with the royal research ship Sir David Attenborough. They will look at the sustainability of fishing and marine resources in the Southern ocean and the changing impacts of climate change in that part of the world, and the impact that has on global supply chains and weather patterns.
I again thank the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire for her contribution, and I agree with much of what she had to say. She spoke on two issues about which I am passionate. I have met young people in our overseas territories—part of our British family—who talked about the bleaching of corals.
The hon. Lady also mentioned wheat, and through our investment, alongside others, in the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research, climate-resilient wheat varieties can now be found on about 50% of global wheat-growing areas, particularly in developing countries, and the work we have been doing on this over a number of years has been crucial.
My hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr Perkins), who is Chair of the Environmental Audit Committee, made some very important points. I know how passionate he is about these issues. I agree wholeheartedly with him about the extraordinary retrograde position that the Conservative party has taken in recent weeks. It is shocking. I do not even want to get into Reform.
Stephen Doughty
I will respond to some points, but I will take interventions if we have time.
The position that the shadow Minister set out would lead not only to economic disaster but to a complete betrayal of future generations. I will not even get on to Reform, which shares similarly outdated and unrealistic views. I note that one other party is absent that people would expect to be here, which is somewhat surprising.
Our investment in renewable energy, sustainable farming and global sustainability is generating jobs. It is generating opportunities for people in this country, but it is also addressing a global concern. That is why the former Prime Minister, Baroness May, was absolutely right to describe the Conservative position as a “catastrophic mistake.”
I agree with what the hon. Member for South Cotswolds (Dr Savage) said about the importance of resilience and the role of our oceans, and it is why we are investing in the blue belt programme and other global schemes. I also pay tribute to the work of my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner) on these issues over many years. I welcome that his experience and passion will not be missing from these debates in future.
The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) always makes important points, particularly about the importance of Northern Ireland agriculture and farming. It was a delight to enjoy produce from Northern Ireland at the Hillsborough summit on the western Balkans last week. He made important points about food waste.
My hon. Friend the Member for Brent West (Barry Gardiner), who always speaks passionately on these issues, rightly spoke about diversity and its importance to our global ecosystems. I also thank and pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy) for her work over many years. It is a pleasure to work with her as a Minister and in many other capacities. She made incredibly powerful points.
My hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central and Headingley (Alex Sobel) is also a long-term campaigner and advocate on these issues. I am glad that he raised Ukraine, and I thank him for his work engaging across all these issues as our trade envoy. I had not been aware that my hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough (Dr Sandher) had worked in Somaliland, where I have also previously engaged with communities that have experienced food insecurity and drought. That has been a particular challenge across the whole horn of Africa, and my hon. Friend made some very important points.
My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Hallam (Olivia Blake), who is also a passionate advocate on these issues, rightly asked about the Government’s commitments on the wider agenda. I have given her our assurance that it will be a crucial part of our agenda for what we will set out at COP.
My hon. Friend the Member for South West Norfolk (Terry Jermy) spoke about food systems and their impact on global emissions, and he is absolutely right. Food systems already drive one third of global emissions and they will become the biggest source by 2050. I totally agree with his view that farmers as the crucial custodians not only of sustainability but of animal welfare, which is a crucial issue.
The Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Esher and Walton (Monica Harding), asked about attendance at COP. I will not get ahead of announcements about ministerial travel or otherwise, but I can confirm that His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales will be attending, as will my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero. I am sure we will announce other ministerial attendance in due course.
The hon. Lady asked about finance, and obviously we are committed to delivering on our pledge of £11.6 billion of international climate finance by the end of 2025-26. We are already looking at the results of what that investment has done so far. Since 2011, an estimated 137 million people have been better supported to adapt, and an estimated 145 million tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions have been reduced or avoided.
The hon. Lady asked about private finance, which is also a crucial part of this picture, and we are working through a range of mechanisms as part of our modernised approach to development. For example, I point to British International Investment, which had a $652 million food and agriculture portfolio in 2022. It supports sustainable and other forms of agriculture, which obviously contribute to growth, development and opportunities in those sectors. I also point to the work we are doing through the FASA fund in financing agricultural small and medium-sized enterprises in Africa.
A number of specific points were made about the sustainable farming incentive, the Groceries Code Adjudicator and animal welfare. If Members do not mind, I will come back to those in due course, but I want to cover a few key points in the limited time remaining.
It is absolutely clear that, by 2050, the world will need 50% more food, but land and natural resources are already under strain, and agriculture that produces food is already one of the sectors most vulnerable to the impacts of climate change. When that is coupled with nature loss, conflict and global instability, the impacts on production are pushing up prices and exposing weak spots in our supply chains that affect people here in Britain and our partners. The pressure always falls the hardest on vulnerable people, whether in our own constituencies or in places ranging from the Sahel to the horn of Africa and Afghanistan. Of course, our own food security relies on resilient supply chains and stable global markets.
Food must be part of the solution. We need to produce it more sustainably—on less land, with less deforestation, less waste, fewer emissions and less pollution. Sustainable systems can, of course, improve nutrition, strengthen food security, support livelihoods, restore ecosystems and build resilience. I mentioned our partnership with the CGIAR. We also work with the Gates Foundation, the World Bank and the UK-Brazil-Africa research partnership, which scales solutions. We are committed to science-led transformation in our role as a trusted partner. Whether it is our work with the World Bank to support Indonesia and the Philippines to reform inefficient and harmful fertiliser subsidies, or our work on livestock vaccines for foot and mouth in east Africa and on climate-resilient seeds, our work and investment is having tangible results. For example, we are working on drought-resistant maize through our CGIAR funding, and I have already mentioned our work on wheat.
We need to do more in this area. Our research shows that food systems receive just 7% of total climate finance, and less than 1% of that reaches smallholder farmers. We need to do much more on that, and it will be a crucial part of the COP30 agenda we will be advancing.
We welcome the work that Brazil has already been doing as host, including its resilient agriculture investment for net zero land degradation initiative and its efforts to draw attention to climate, hunger and poverty, and the links between them. We have shown leadership in past conferences by supporting landmark declarations such as the Emirates declaration and the Glasgow leaders’ declaration.
I do not want to get ahead of the conversations we will have at COP30, but I hope I have demonstrated our absolute commitment in this area, which is of course reflected in what we are doing here at home. We are backing British farming with more than £2.7 billion a year for sustainable agriculture and nature recovery; and through our environmental land management schemes, we are rewarding farmers for environmental benefits, improving productivity and maintaining food production.
We are committed to clear action at COP. This Government are committed to showing leadership, and we are conscious that we face this challenge both here at home and abroad. I thank all Members for their comments. The prize is clear: a future in which food systems are resilient, fair and sustainable, in which farmers are supported, in which ecosystems are protected and in which everyone has access to healthy and affordable food.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered COP30 and global food system transformation.
The Global Irregular Migration and Trafficking in Persons Sanctions Regulations 2025
Stephen Doughty Excerpts(2 weeks, 3 days ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Stephen Doughty)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the Global Irregular Migration and Trafficking in Persons Sanctions Regulations 2025 (S.I., 2025, No. 902).
It is a pleasure to have you in the Chair today, Sir Desmond. I welcome all colleagues back after the conference recess. This statutory instrument was laid before Parliament on 22 July under powers in the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Act 2018. The measures in the instrument were made under the affirmative procedure and entered into force on 23 July.
The Committee will be well aware that we in the United Kingdom face a grave problem: large numbers of individuals are undertaking dangerous journeys via irregular migration routes that not only risk their lives but undermine the rule of law. Irregular migration is as much a foreign policy issue as a domestic one. Smashing the gangs and addressing public concerns at home demand hard-headed action and co-operation abroad.
We are determined to confront the concern head-on, targeting those responsible rather than the victims of the vile trade, and protecting national and international security in the process. People smuggling and trafficking are assaults on human dignity. They are vile trades that exploit the vulnerable, fuel organised crime and destabilise entire regions. As our national security strategy makes clear, they threaten peace, security and the very fabric of international co-operation. That is why irregular migration is a top priority for the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office. Together with the Home Office, we have established a joint unit on international irregular migration to strengthen our efforts, deliver our strategy and drive results.
In that vein, and given the purpose of the regulations, sanctions are one of the most important foreign policy tools that the UK uses to back words with action. We now have 37 live sanctions regimes, with more than 4,000 individuals and entities designated. All designated individuals and entities appear on the UK sanctions list, which can be found on gov.uk. We continue to use sanctions alongside all our other diplomatic tools to protect our citizens, uphold our values, and defend international peace and security.
The sanctions regime is a landmark step, as it is the first dedicated regime of its kind anywhere in the world. It is designed to prevent and combat the networks that enable irregular migration; it reflects deep collaboration across government, from the Home Office to law enforcement; and it draws on the full breadth of our expertise. It enables us to strike at every link in the chain, from source to destination. We can impose real costs on the callous groups and individuals who promote and profit from this inhuman trade in people. Sanctioned individuals will face serious consequences, including being banned from entering the UK, being disqualified from company directorships and having their assets frozen.
The regime adds powerful new tools to our arsenal. It will enable us to act against people smugglers and their enablers with the same force that we apply to terrorists, cyber-criminals and kleptocrats. It also reflects our broader strategy to use sanctions to deter and disrupt threats and malign behaviour, defend our values and protect our country. The regime will target individuals and entities wherever they are in the world, from operators in countries of origin to those who smuggle migrants across borders and those who enable, promote and profit from those dangerous journeys. That includes companies involved in small-boat supply chains and organised immigration crime. No part of the smuggling infrastructure is beyond reach. Crucially, it also allows us to target hostile state-backed actors who seek to weaponise migration to destabilise the UK or our allies.
On 23 July, therefore, the UK took action. We sanctioned 25 individuals and entities involved in people smuggling, from small-boat suppliers in Asia, to hawala money movers in the middle east and gang leaders in the Balkans and north Africa. That included individuals such as Bledar Lala, who leads a smuggling ring that moves people from Belgium across the English channel to the UK, and Muhammed Pirot, a hawala banker who controls payments from people being smuggled from the Kurdistan region of Iraq to Europe via Turkey. Those designations cover a range of activities, including: supplying boats, forging documents, facilitating illicit payments and orchestrating smuggling operations. Each designation represents a blow to the business model of exploitation.
We will continue to monitor the effectiveness of the designations imposed so far and of any future designations, to ensure that they demonstrate our ability to target individuals and entities anywhere in the world, to disrupt the activities of criminal networks, and to deter others from engaging in this vile trade.
While we are proud to lead, we do not stand alone. People smuggling and trafficking are global concerns. We are working with international partners to confront them together. Indeed, with the new Foreign Secretary, I had important conversations with representatives from across the western Balkans just last week in Northern Ireland. There have also been important discussions at the European Political Community meeting in Denmark in recent weeks. Our work together includes strengthening sanctions co-ordination, sharing intelligence and building joint responses to dismantle criminal networks. We welcome news from EU Commission President von der Leyen that she intends to propose to EU member states a new system of sanctions specifically targeted at people smugglers and traffickers. We look forward to working with the EU and other key partners to smash the gangs and tackle irregular migration.
To conclude, sanctions are a powerful tool of foreign and security policy. UK sanctions are built on a transparent and robust legal framework. That has been confirmed by our courts, including by the Supreme Court in July. However, there might be instances where a person’s activity falls within the scope of both sanctions and other relevant law enforcement and criminal justice powers. In such instances, we will work closely with colleagues across Whitehall and in law enforcement to de-conflict and to ensure that appropriate tools are used. The Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office will continue to play its full part in delivering the Government’s plan for change. This legislation and the designations that have followed and will follow are proof of that commitment. I commend the regulations to the Committee.
Stephen Doughty
I thank the shadow Minister for her comments, but I must start by completely rejecting her overall thesis on the Government’s migration policy. I would put it to the Committee that the previous Government left the system in absolute chaos. Over 400 hotels opened, at a cost of nearly £9 million a day, and they deliberately cut asylum decision making by 70% and wasted £700 million. I was also quite surprised to hear her mention the Rwanda scheme, which returned just four volunteers.
In contrast, we have introduced this new world-leading regime, which is already having an impact, which I will come to in a moment. We have doubled the number of asylum decisions and increased the removal of failed asylum seekers by 30%. We have removed 35,000 people with no right to be here, including 5,200 foreign criminals. The shadow Minister mentioned hotels, and the number of hotels involved is now down to 200, which is almost half of what it peaked at under the last Government, and we will close the rest as quickly as possible. We have also announced £250 million to fund the new Border Security Command since taking power.
I mentioned some of the work that the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office is doing, but at every level we are working in co-operation with partners in Europe and elsewhere to ensure that we tackle the gangs and individuals engaging in the vile trade of smuggling people across borders and ending up at the English channel. We are taking action in multiple areas to do that, and those that we are taking with partners in the western Balkans and with other European partners at the EPC just last week, for example, are testament to that.
The shadow Minister asked about the length of time. She will know from when I was sitting in her place in opposition that I often raised the length of time, but she will also understand, I am sure with generosity, that to bring in a completely innovative and new regime—it is the first in the world of this nature—we need to ensure that it is legally robust and substantial. When making designations, we must ensure that they are absolutely based in facts and evidence, and that they can be substantiated. As I said, this regime was introduced in July and we are only debating it now because of the recesses, but this is very swift action and we used the new powers almost immediately.
I can assure the shadow Minister that there will be further use of the powers, but I will not say when, as she knows that I do not comment on future designations. However, I can assure her that there is more to come, and we are monitoring the impacts of this first round of designations, which are substantial already. I can assure her that there has been an impact, but I do not want to get into operational details of what our law enforcement and other agencies are looking at. We are working closely with a range of agencies across government to ensure not only that the measures that we have already announced have an impact, but that we use the lessons from those in looking at what will be the biggest-impact targets, which will allow us to deter the vile smuggling chains and those who finance, support and facilitate them around the world.
The shadow Minister was clear that she supports this regime and is not going to oppose the regulations, and I am glad at least for that. I think that is very important, particularly when we have seen Members from on all parts of the House work together on the issue of human trafficking and the vile trade that is involved. There is broad agreement that we absolutely need to go after the individuals involved in that vile trade, and that is exactly what this regime does.
On the resourcing questions that the shadow Minister asked, we have an excellent team of officials who work on these matters. There must always be a balance to ensure that we can deliver on all our different sanctions priorities. We keep those resourcing requirements under regular review, but I can assure her that the team is more than capable of delivering. This is not just an effort by the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office; it involves our law enforcement agencies and close working with our colleagues in the Home Office and elsewhere, as it does across the piece on our sanctions regimes. The principles of disrupt, demonstrate and deter are at the heart of this regime, as they are at the heart of all our sanctions regimes. I am confident that we delivering in all three respects, and I commend these regulations to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Armenia and Azerbaijan: Upgrading of UK Bilateral Relationships and Lifting the UK Arms Embargo
Stephen Doughty Excerpts(2 weeks, 3 days ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Stephen Doughty)
This statement supersedes the written ministerial statement of Wednesday 1 July 2025 on Armenia and Azerbaijan: Arms Embargo [HCWS760].
I wish to inform the House of the significant developments in the South Caucasus and the United Kingdom’s response to the historic progress made in the Armenia-Azerbaijan peace process.
On 8 August, a trilateral peace summit hosted by President Trump in Washington D. C. brought together President Aliyev of Azerbaijan and Prime Minister Pashinyan of Armenia. The summit resulted in the initialling of a peace agreement between Armenia and Azerbaijan, as well as the signing of a joint declaration. This declaration included a joint appeal to dissolve the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe Minsk Group and a commitment to secure unimpeded connectivity between Azerbaijan and its Nakhchivan exclave, while respecting Armenia’s sovereignty and territorial integrity. The UK warmly welcomes the progress made by Armenia and Azerbaijan towards peace. These developments mark a pivotal moment in efforts to secure lasting peace and stability in the region.
In recognition of Armenia’s and Azerbaijan’s progress, and to support continued momentum towards peace, the UK Government have decided to upgrade their bilateral relationships with both Armenia and Azerbaijan to strategic partnerships. These partnerships will formalise co-operation in areas including trade, security, and defence, and will be underpinned by annual ministerial-level meetings to review progress. I visited Armenia and Azerbaijan from 24 to 26 August to reaffirm UK support and discussed with the leaders of both countries how the UK could take practical measures to reinforce the prospects for long-term peace in the South Caucasus.
We have taken immediate steps to welcome and support Armenia and Azerbaijan on their pathway to peace by supporting the closure of the OSCE Minsk Group, in line with their request. The UK welcomes the consensus reached on 1 September to formally dissolve the OSCE Minsk Group structures.
Given the significant progress made in advancing peace, and the historic outcomes of the recent summit in Washington hosted by President Trump, the UK considers that the rationale underpinning the OSCE’s 1992 recommended arms embargo on
“all deliveries of weapons and munitions to forces engaged in combat in the Nagorno-Karabakh area”
has fallen away. The UK will therefore fully lift its arms embargo on Armenia and Azerbaijan. This decision will enable the UK’s security and defence partnerships with both Armenia and Azerbaijan to evolve in a rapidly changing context, and will allow the UK to support efforts to safeguard their sovereignty and territorial integrity, including in response to conventional and hybrid threats from other states and non-state actors.
Export and trade licence applications for Armenia and Azerbaijan will of course continue to be assessed on a case-by-case basis against the robust UK Strategic Export Licensing Criteria, and the Government will not issue any licence where to do so would be inconsistent with any of the criteria. We will keep the regional and internal security situation of both Azerbaijan and Armenia under close review.
We sincerely hope this is a moment of opportunity for peace, security and prosperity in the South Caucasus.
The UK stands ready to work with both countries, the United States, the European Union and other partners to play a constructive and proactive role in supporting this transformation, and the security and stability of the wider region.
[HCWS944]
British Virgin Islands: Governance
Stephen Doughty Excerpts(2 weeks, 3 days ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Stephen Doughty)
In 2022, Sir Gary Hickinbottom’s commission of inquiry identified gross failures of governance in the British Virgin Islands, a British overseas territory. The inquiry found that, with limited exceptions, the people of BVI had been badly served in terms of governance.
In the aftermath of these findings, and the arrest and subsequent conviction of the former Premier in the United States of America, the United Kingdom Government agreed an implementation framework with the new Premier, Natalio Wheatley, to drive the delivery of vital reforms to address the serious deficiencies identified by the commission of inquiry.
An Order in Council that would allow for an interim Administration was also drafted for use in extremis, should the BVI Government have failed to complete their stated programme of reforms.
In November 2024, during a visit to BVI, I announced that I would review progress, taking into account public consultations held by the Governor and the BVI Government, a final report from the Governor, reviews by FCDO officials, and a self-assessment by the BVI Government.
I can inform the House that the new BVI Government, working closely with the Governor and BVI public servants, have made important progress and engaged constructively.
While progress has been slower than initially envisaged, a number of significant pieces of legislation have been passed and the agreed framework actioned. Given the progress made, an interim Administration is not required or justified, and thus the draft Order in Council is now being revoked.
However, the hard work of ensuring continued implementation of these changes now begins. In discussions with Premier Wheatley, I have re-emphasised the importance of building on these strong foundations, to secure good governance that is sustainable in the long term and delivers for the people of BVI. To that end, I have also instructed the Governor to establish a monitoring mechanism, with twice yearly public reports. I have been clear that we reserve the right to take any appropriate actions necessary in future, in line with our responsibilities to the security and good governance of BVI and the interests of both BVI and the United Kingdom.
We will continue to support BVI in a spirit of partnership, and we have set clear expectations that there must be no repeat of the failings in governance that lead to the commission of inquiry.
Separately, we continue our work with BVI to deliver improvements in financial transparency in line with commitments made at the last Joint Ministerial Council, most recently discussed during the recent visit of Baroness Margaret Hodge at my direction and in my conversations with Premier Wheatley, as well as our work on sanctions enforcement and on areas of common focus such as environmental protection. I want to thank Departments across HM Government for their support in this work and the Governor, the Premier and their teams.
I nevertheless remain deeply concerned about the findings of a review of law enforcement agencies in BVI by His Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary and fire rescue services, which identified a number of serious issues. We are working to support immediate improvements to law enforcement capability, including the critical implementation of vetting processes. It is vital that these and other changes are made with urgency and appropriate funding provided, to keep the people of the British Virgin Islands safe and to combat the serious and organised crime that impacts BVI, and on the United Kingdom, the region and our partners. I will not hesitate to act if urgent improvements are not made.
[HCWS943]
Ambassador to the United States
Stephen Doughty Excerpts(1 month, 2 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)
On Thursday, I came to this House to announce that the Prime Minister had asked the Foreign Secretary to withdraw Lord Mandelson as the UK’s ambassador to the United States. At the outset, may I say—there were many comments to this effect from across the House—that all of us are appalled by Epstein’s crimes, and all those who have suffered as a result need to be at the forefront of our minds today.
I also thank a number of right hon. and hon. Members for what I think were genuine suggestions about scrutiny of processes in relation to ambassadorial appointments. In particular, the Government have listened to the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee, my right hon. Friend the Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry), on this matter, and we will consider all options to support the Committee in its work in future.
Stephen Doughty
I will not give way at first. I need to respond to many of the points that have been made in the debate, after which I will happily take some interventions.
The Prime Minister took this decision after new information showed that the nature and extent of Lord Mandelson’s relationship with Jeffrey Epstein was materially different from what was known at the time of his appointment. In particular, Lord Mandelson suggested that Epstein’s conviction was wrongful, encouraged him to fight for early release, and said that Epstein had been through “years of torture”. We know that the only people tortured were the women and girls whose lives were destroyed by Epstein’s heinous crimes. I associate myself with the remarks that a number of right hon. and hon. Members made on that point, both about the crimes and the victims.
Stephen Flynn
Is the Minister effectively telling the House that Lord Mandelson retaining his friendship with Jeffrey Epstein despite him being a paedophile was fine, and that the only problem was that Lord Mandelson thought that Jeffrey Epstein was innocent? Is the Minister conveying the message to the public that if Lord Mandelson had not sent those emails and had said to the Prime Minister that Jeffrey Epstein was guilty, that would not have been a problem?
Stephen Doughty
The Prime Minister has been explicitly clear that the new information was not compatible with the duty that we owe to the victims of Jeffrey Epstein’s horrendous crimes against women and girls, and with this Government’s clear commitment to tackling that kind of violence and abuse. As such, the Prime Minister took decisive action to withdraw Lord Mandelson as ambassador. He has also been clear—he undertook a number of media interviews yesterday—that Lord Mandelson would not have been appointed if all the information we now have was available at the time. I point the House to what the Prime Minister had to say yesterday:
“Had I known then what I know now, I’d have never appointed him.”
Following Lord Mandelson’s departure and in line with standard diplomatic practice, the deputy head of mission, James Roscoe—an experienced and capable diplomat—has been put in place as the chargé d’affaires.
Dr Evans
The Minister is doing a fair job, but I have one simple question for him: why is he, not the Prime Minister, in the Chamber answering the House’s questions? The Minister clearly cannot answer them—no disrespect to him. The Prime Minister said that he did not know something, but now he knows something. Where is the Prime Minister, and why is he not at the Dispatch Box?
Stephen Doughty
I am in the Chamber responding for the Government as the Minister for North America. The hon. Gentleman will understand that there are very important matters taking place today that the Prime Minister and Foreign Secretary are involved with. We have also seen the new Hillsborough law launched today, which has been referenced during the debate.
Stephen Doughty
I will give way to the right hon. Gentleman in short order, but first I want to say something about our excellent diplomats and officials across the world.
We have an excellent team at the British embassy in Washington—indeed, we have had many excellent ambassadors, and we have a wide network across the United States, not just in Washington—and in King Charles Street. I pay tribute to them and all the work they are doing, particularly in supporting the outcomes of this week’s important and historic state visit. I associate myself totally with the remarks made by my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall and Camberwell Green (Florence Eshalomi) about their professionalism, which I know has been experienced by many Members across the House. It is important that we put that on the record. This is a crucial moment for UK-US relations; together, we are focused on delivering on jobs, growth and security for people on both sides of the Atlantic.
I said that I would give way to the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis), so I will.
Sir Julian Lewis
Given that the Minister is such a decent Minister, who enjoys respect on both sides of the House, I am tempted to repeat the advice that Lloyd George gave to Churchill during the Norway debate of 1940, which is not to make himself an air raid shelter to protect his colleagues—in this case, the Prime Minister—from the splinters. If the Prime Minister’s case is as strong as the Minister makes out, can he explain why, if I remember correctly, only a single Labour Back Bencher has made a speech in the Prime Minister’s favour?
Stephen Doughty
With respect, this is an emergency debate that was secured by the Opposition. I am in the Chamber setting out the case very clearly, and we have had a number of contributions from Labour Members. The right hon. Member knows that I and Members from across the House have affection for him and the work he does, including his previous roles chairing many important Committees of this House.
Many right hon. and hon. Members have asked a number of specific questions, including about the vetting process and security clearances that applied in this particular case. I fully understand the interest in those questions, and undoubtedly other questions will be raised over the course of discussions in this place. As you will know, Madam Deputy Speaker, it is the practice of successive Administrations—including precedents from the last Government—not to comment on which officials have access to confidential information. That remains the case today.
I want to pay particular attention to this matter, because it is important and because Members present have asked very sensible questions. The national security vetting process is confidential, and the UK Government’s vetting charter includes an undertaking to protect personal data and other information in the strictest confidence. I am not going to depart from that approach in this Chamber today and release personal information about an individual’s confidential vetting. However, while I will not talk about the confidential details relating to this case, I can provide details of the overall processes that a number of people have asked about, including the right hon. Member for Goole and Pocklington (David Davis), who opened the debate.
Prior to the announcement of Lord Mandelson’s appointment as ambassador, the propriety and ethics team in the Cabinet Office undertook a due diligence process, and after his appointment was announced on 20 December 2024, the FCDO started the ambassadorial appointment process, including national security vetting. That vetting process was undertaken by UK Security Vetting on behalf of the FCDO, and concluded with clearance being granted by the FCDO in advance of Lord Mandelson taking up his post in February.
Sir Alec Shelbrooke
I accept that private data cannot be disclosed, but is there a mechanism by which the Minister can ask the Intelligence and Security Committee to look into the question of whether somebody—a civil servant, for example—who was known to have had a close association with a convicted paedophile would have passed the vetting process to hold such a sensitive position? That could be something that the Minister passes on to the ISC to look at, because it goes to the heart of the situation. I very much doubt that a person with that sort of association would be given the highest security clearance.
Stephen Doughty
I know the right hon. Gentleman makes that point with sincerity, but I will not comment on the national security vetting process. That would not be appropriate or in line with being consistent from Government to Government.
Stephen Doughty
I will not give way; the hon. Gentleman was not here for the debate and he has just popped up now to try to intervene.
National security vetting is a long-standing formal process undertaken by UK Security Vetting on behalf of individual Departments, and it reports back to them. It helps Departments to identify and manage risks where individuals have access to sensitive assets or sites, and there are established processes within national security vetting to consider any security concerns raised and to manage such risks appropriately. Importantly, the national security vetting process is rightly independent of Ministers, who are not informed of any findings other than the final outcome. Exactly the same procedures were followed in this case.
Stephen Doughty
I will make a little more progress and then will happily give way.
To return to the fundamental question that has been asked by many Members, as I said at the start, in the light of new information, the Prime Minister made the decision to withdraw Lord Mandelson as ambassador. The Prime Minister took decisive action on these issues, and now the Government’s focus is seizing the opportunities of our US partnership as we look forward to the next phase of government, moving from fixing the foundations to driving forward growth and national renewal.
A lot of Members asked sensible questions about the relationship with the United States, our economy, our security and the state visit that is happening this week. I point the House to the fact that last week we secured and announced a £400 million contract with Google Cloud, boosting secure communications between the UK and US and building new intelligence capabilities for the UK armed forces. On Sunday, we announced more than £1.2 billion of private US investment in the UK’s world-leading financial services sector, and that new investment will create 1,800 new jobs across the UK and boost benefits for millions of customers. [Interruption.] Just yesterday, we announced a new UK-US partnership on civil nuclear power as part of our drive to put billions of pounds of private investment into clean energy, and I look forward to further announcements over the coming days.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. I can barely hear the Minister speak.
Stephen Doughty
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker; I have taken a number of interventions, and I do want to make some progress.
Hon. and right hon. Members have asked about the US-UK relationship. I can tell them that it is strong, thriving and growing. The steps that I have mentioned will ensure that our two nations continue to lead the world in innovation. We have trade worth more than £315 billion last year, and the US and UK economies are inextricably linked. Through the state visit, we will take that relationship even further, making trade and investment deals that will benefit hard-working families across these countries and regions.
Richard Tice
Last week, the Prime Minister expressed confidence in Lord Mandelson. This week, does the Minister express his confidence in national security vetting?
Stephen Doughty
Of course I have confidence in our national security vetting staff. They do incredibly important work keeping this country safe. I will not comment on individual cases—I have been clear about that. I will return to the fundamental question asked by the hon. Member and others.
Emily Thornberry
Will the Minister help us with this? In the letter that the new Foreign Secretary wrote to me, she said that the Cabinet Office propriety and ethics team conducted a due diligence process at the request of No. 10 prior to the announcement of the appointment, and that the FCDO was not asked to contribute to that process and no issues were raised with the FCDO as a result of it. Now that the Minister has heard that, is he surprised that the Foreign Office was not involved?
Stephen Doughty
I have set out the process clearly, and I note that the Chair of the Select Committee has received that letter, which also sets it out clearly. She may have slightly missed the commitment that I made to her and to members of her Committee at the start of the debate, which was about considering all options to support the Committee in its work on pre-scrutiny processes. She makes an important and sensible point.
Stephen Doughty
I am going to conclude, and I do want to get back to the fundamental question.
The Prime Minister has made it clear that Lord Mandelson should not and would not have been appointed as ambassador in the light of the shocking information that came to light in the past week. The argument that we have heard from Opposition Members today is that the information was clear all along. But if the full depth and extent of this relationship had been so obvious, I hardly think that Lord Mandelson would have been one of the leading candidates to become chancellor of Oxford University—but he was. I highly doubt that he would have been offered a job as a presenter on Times Radio—but he was. He also appeared on BBC “Newsnight”, a programme that has done important work investigating the crimes of—
Madam Deputy Speaker
That is not a matter for the Chair. It is entirely up to the Minister if he wishes to give way or not.
Stephen Doughty
I was making an important point about the scrutiny of Jeffrey Epstein conducted by BBC’s “Newsnight”; such serious questions might have been asked of Lord Mandelson, but to my recollection none were. [Interruption.] Indeed, I am glad that the Leader of the Opposition wants to intervene, because I have a question for her. She and the shadow Foreign Secretary, the right hon. Member for Witham (Priti Patel), as well as other Opposition Members, have raised questions today, but did they say a word in this House about Lord Mandelson’s appointment before last Wednesday? I do not have any record of that. In fact, the record shows that they did not raise it and they did not ask questions. The reality is that in the light of new information, the Prime Minister has acted decisively.
Mrs Badenoch
We did not need any new information to know that it was an unsuitable appointment. The Minister is making a doughty defence of Lord Mandelson, but the truth is that this debate has been about the Prime Minister’s judgment. When I was a Secretary of State and questions were asked about judgment, I did not send junior Ministers to answer my questions; I faced the House and I explained what had happened. The Prime Minister is not doing so. Will the Minister commit now to answering all the questions that I asked in writing? Will he also take this opportunity to apologise to the victims? He has not done so and the Government have not done so. The debate is nearly over. Will he take this opportunity to apologise to the victims for the appointment of Lord Mandelson?
Stephen Doughty
Perhaps the Leader of the Opposition was not in her seat at the start of the debate, because I made very clear our position on Epstein’s victims and our horror at the revelations, and said that all our thoughts are with them. I did that in sincerity in response to the points that have been made across this House, and I say that again. However, she could not answer my question. She did not raise this issue before last Wednesday. If it was all so obvious, why did not she do that?
Stephen Doughty
I was referring to whether this matter had been raised in the House by the Leader of the Opposition and others.
The Prime Minister acted decisively in response to the new information, which is exactly what should have happened. The former ambassador has been withdrawn. The Prime Minister and the Government are focused on deepening our special relationship with the United States in the interests of people across the Atlantic for jobs, growth, prosperity, security and our defence. That relationship with the United States is a relationship that has endured, is enduring, and will endure for the prosperity and security of our peoples well into the future.
UK Ambassador to the US: Appointment Process
Stephen Doughty Excerpts(1 month, 2 weeks 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
Neil O’Brien (Harborough, Oadby and Wigston) (Con)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Foreign Secretary if she will make a statement on the process for the appointment of the United Kingdom’s ambassador to the United States.
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Stephen Doughty)
Before I respond to the question, it is important that as a House we all recognise that today is the anniversary of the 11 September attacks. Many of us will attend commemorations later, and our thoughts are with all the thousands of people who lost their lives in that despicable terrorist attack, including many British and American citizens, as well as those from many other countries.
The whole House’s condolences and thoughts will also be with the family and friends of Charlie Kirk— it was an absolutely appalling attack and murder yesterday. In this House, as we sit under the two shields commemorating our dear colleagues from across the political spectrum, we know too well the terrible consequences of political violence. I know that the whole House will be thinking of Charlie’s family, friends and others, and urging an end to that sort of political violence, which is absolutely appalling.
In light of additional information in emails written by Peter Mandelson, the Prime Minister has asked the Foreign Secretary to withdraw him as ambassador to the United States. The emails show that the depth and extent of Lord Mandelson’s relationship with Jeffrey Epstein is materially different from that known at the time of his appointment. In particular, Lord Mandelson’s suggestion that Jeffrey Epstein’s first conviction was wrongful and should be challenged is new information. In the light of that and mindful, as we all are, of the victims of Epstein’s appalling crimes, Lord Mandelson has been withdrawn as ambassador with immediate effect.
Neil O’Brien
Mr Speaker, I thank you for granting this urgent question, and I agree with the words of the Minister about 11 September and Charlie Kirk.
This is yet another extraordinary error of judgment by this weak Prime Minister. I pay tribute to the Leader of the Opposition for yesterday securing justice for the victims of Epstein. This raises massive questions. It is not just that Peter Mandelson was Epstein’s “best pal” and said that he loved him, or that he brokered a deal for him while he was Business Secretary, but that, as we now know, he was working for Epstein’s early release after Epstein was convicted.
The simple question is this: is the Minister now saying that the Prime Minister did not know about any of that at the point when Lord Mandelson was appointed? The Minister should not say that the boxes were ticked and the process followed—what did the Prime Minister know at the point of Lord Mandelson’s appointment? The Minister said this morning that his understanding was that all the information was present—is that correct? Did the Prime Minister know? Will the Government now publish all the documents relating to Peter Mandelson’s vetting? If the Minister says that the Prime Minister did not know at the time, when did he become aware of the revelations?
Peter Mandelson quietly stayed at Epstein’s house while Epstein was in prison. Mandelson now says that he was wrong to think that Epstein was innocent. That is his defence—but Epstein had pleaded guilty. There are huge questions here. Did the US State Department give any warnings to our Government ahead of this appointment? Did the Prime Minister’s chief of staff, Sue Gray, give any warning? Have any employees of Global Counsel visited our Washington embassy since Peter Mandelson’s appointment?
Next week will be the state visit. This is huge turmoil ahead of that, and I cannot believe that the Government have put our monarch in this terrible position. I am glad that Peter Mandelson has now gone. The Foreign Secretary has said that protecting women, girls and victims is her priority; how on earth does that square with the behaviour of the Government over recent days, squirming and twisting to try to protect Peter Mandelson, rather than the victims?
To be clear, this is a Government in which we had a corruption Minister having to resign over links to corruption; a former police officer having to resign over having not been clear with the police; a housing Minister having to resign over not paying tax on a house; and now we have our ambassador to Washington in the middle of the biggest scandal in Washington. This is a weak Prime Minister, with error after error of judgment.
Stephen Doughty
The first thing that we all need to be clear on across this House is that the victims of Epstein are at the forefront of all our minds—I am sure the hon. Gentleman will not disagree with that. Epstein was a despicable criminal who committed the most heinous crimes and destroyed the lives of so many women and girls.
Obviously the hon. Gentleman wrote his remarks before the events in the last few hours, but I reiterate what I said to him. The emails show that the depth and extent of Lord Mandelson’s relationship with Jeffrey Epstein was materially different from that known at the time of his appointment; in particular, the suggestion that Jeffrey Epstein’s first conviction was wrongful and should be challenged is new information. Lord Mandelson has resigned and that decision has been taken. That is a very clear answer to the hon. Gentleman’s questions.
Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough and Thornaby East) (Lab)
I am sure I speak for the whole House in sending our best wishes to my hon. Friend the Member for Washington and Gateshead South (Mrs Hodgson) on the appalling fire at her office overnight. We send our very best wishes to her and her staff.
May I thank the Minister for his statement? The Prime Minister has made exactly the right decision, and I think that has to be acknowledged. He has moved at pace to put it right—[Interruption.] Don’t be ridiculous. Treat this seriously.
Andy McDonald
Clearly the appointment process did not pick up these issues; that is self-evident. Can we have an assurance that there will be an inquiry into why that was not the case and that this House will be kept informed?
Stephen Doughty
First, I was not aware of the terrible incident that my hon. Friend refers to; I have just been informed of that this morning. I am sure the thoughts of the whole House will be with my hon. Friend the Member for Washington and Gateshead South (Mrs Hodgson). I know how seriously you take the safety and security of Members of this House, Mr Speaker, particularly in the light of international events and the tragic loss of colleagues. That underlines all the more why we must be able to go about democratic debate in this country, whatever our views, in a safe and secure way.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough and Thornaby East (Andy McDonald) for his comments on the decision. As I said, the decision has been taken by the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary, and Lord Mandelson has resigned. My hon. Friend asked about the process. Any candidates for ambassador positions are subject to routine, extensive vetting and background checks as a matter of course; I point him to the formal processes outlined in the diplomatic service code, which highlights the robust security clearance and vetting process that all members of the diplomatic service undergo.
Helen Maguire (Epsom and Ewell) (LD)
Our thoughts are with the friends and families of the victims of 9/11. I also express my regret and sadness at the murder of Charlie Kirk, and I hope that the hon. Member for Washington and Gateshead South (Mrs Hodgson) and her staff are all okay following the incident at her office. Political violence should have absolutely no place in society.
Lord Mandelson was tasked with overseeing the UK’s relationship with Trump, and the accusations surrounding him cast a damning shadow, so it is right that the Prime Minister has withdrawn his support for Lord Mandelson. Yesterday the Prime Minister stood by Lord Mandelson’s appointment and confirmed that rigorous background checks had taken place. What has changed since then? Questions remain over what the Government knew and when about Lord Mandelson’s relationship with the sex offender, whom he had previously described as his “best pal”. Did he resign, or was he sacked?
It is vital that the Civil Service Commission now investigates whether the ambassador broke the diplomatic service code by failing to come clean over these revelations sooner. Was the vetting process pushed through too fast? Will the Minister confirm that an investigation will take place so that no such incidents can happen again? Reports have surfaced that the Cabinet Office suppressed the release of a memo about Mandelson’s relationship because it could compromise relations with the US. Will the Minister confirm whether that was the case?
Stephen Doughty
I thank the hon. Member for her remarks regarding my hon. Friend the Member for Washington and Gateshead South. Again, I underline the importance of us all being able to go about our roles in a safe and secure way, whatever our political views and beliefs. In the light of international events, particularly in the United States, that should be at the forefront of our minds today.
In the light of the additional information in the emails written by Lord Mandelson, I have been very clear that the Prime Minister asked the Foreign Secretary to withdraw him as ambassador. That is very clear; the decision was taken by the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary. Those emails show that the depth and extent of the relationship was materially different from that known at the time of his appointment.
Alan Gemmell (Central Ayrshire) (Lab)
I associate myself with hon. Members’ condolences and concerns about my hon. Friend the Member for Washington and Gateshead South (Mrs Hodgson).
I thank the Minister for his statement. I too am disgusted and appalled by Epstein’s actions, and my thoughts are with the victims of his crimes. Will the Minister confirm that we have an excellent deputy ambassador in Washington, who will ensure that our mission continues and that next week’s visit will go ahead?
Stephen Doughty
We have an excellent team overall in British embassy Washington. Indeed, I pay tribute to the work of all our diplomatic service colleagues across the world, who do an excellent job in representing this country and ensure that our security and prosperity is at the forefront of their work. Of course, our special relationship and unique security partnership with the United Staes is crucially important. I will be at the United States embassy later today. It is our closest and most important relationship. I agree with my hon. Friend that there is an excellent team in British embassy Washington.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
Obviously this is a very sad day for the United States, with 9/11 and the assassination last night. Our relationship with the United States is crucial, and there is a dark cloud over the upcoming state visit, so will the Minister forgive me if I give him some gentle advice? In my experience of such scandals, the cover-up, the lack of due process and allegations of cronyism are much more serious than any original offence, or alleged offence. Will he ensure that every single document about the process is released post haste, including about the meeting that Mandelson requested with Prime Minister Blair over Epstein? We need everything released straightaway, and we need to move on and get a new ambassador.
Stephen Doughty
The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right about the importance of our relationship with the United States. The upcoming state visit is very important, and we have an extensive team working on it. His Majesty the King is obviously very much looking forward to welcoming President Trump, and many, many officials are working diligently day and night to ensure the visit is a success. I will not get into the individual issues and claims that the right hon. Gentleman makes, but what I will say is that this is a decisive action. In the light of the additional information in emails written by Lord Mandelson, the Prime Minister has asked the Foreign Secretary to withdraw him as ambassador.
Kim Johnson (Liverpool Riverside) (Lab)
I would also like to offer my support to my hon. Friend the Member for Washington and Gateshead South (Mrs Hodgson). That incident follows a number of others that she has experienced this week. It is out of order.
I thank the Minister for his statement, and I am really pleased that Lord Mandelson has been sacked, but I would like to know what due diligence was undertaken prior to his appointment. Everybody knew about his relationship with Epstein before it.
Stephen Doughty
As I have made very clear, it was in the light of additional information and emails written by Lord Mandelson that the Prime Minister asked the Foreign Secretary to withdraw him as ambassador. In particular, Lord Mandelson’s suggestion that Jeffrey Epstein’s first conviction was wrongful and should be challenged is new information. I know my hon. Friend well, and I know that her thoughts and the thoughts of us all will be with the victims of Epstein’s appalling crimes.
David Davis (Goole and Pocklington) (Con)
The House needs to understand the sheer size of the failure of the vetting process here. It is in the public domain that Peter Mandelson had to resign for not telling the truth about an interest-free loan, and that he had to resign on a second occasion because he had helped a business friend to get a passport. Beyond that, there are still unresolved doubts about his behaviour as the European Trade Commissioner, when he gave concessions to the Russians, which helped his other dubious close friend, Mr Deripaska.
On the positive vetting process for when Peter Mandelson came to be a Minister again in 2010, section 3.1 of the ministerial code says:
“Ministers…must ensure that no conflict arises, or could reasonably be perceived to arise, between their public duties and their private interests, financial or otherwise.”
Secretaries of State do not have private diaries. He spent time in Mr Epstein flat, it seems quietly meeting other people involved in the Sempra deal. That cannot be seen as following his proper duties as Secretary of State. It was in the Government documents—it does not have to be a private email. Was that investigated, and was a judgment made on it?
Stephen Doughty
The right hon. Gentleman asks specifically about vetting. As I have said, all candidates for ambassador positions are subject to routine, extensive vetting and background checks as a matter of course. I point him to the formal process outlined in the diplomatic service code, which highlights the robust security clearance and vetting process that all members of the diplomatic service undergo. Again, I point out that, in the light of additional information in emails written by Lord Mandelson, the Prime Minister has asked the Foreign Secretary to withdraw Lord Mandelson as ambassador to the United States.
Sarah Coombes (West Bromwich) (Lab)
I agree with the Minister’s utter condemnation of all the horrendous crimes of Jeffrey Epstein. Does he agree that as soon as this new information came to light, the Government took decisive action very swiftly, which is different from the Conservatives? When they were in government and there were serious misgivings, it was actually the independent ethics adviser who ended up resigning.
Stephen Doughty
I agree that this is decisive action. The Prime Minister has acted in the light of that additional information, the Foreign Secretary has acted, and Lord Mandelson has been withdrawn as ambassador to Washington.
Stephen Flynn (Aberdeen South) (SNP)
I am sure that the Minister is delighted that he has not had to shred his own reputation like his ministerial and Cabinet colleagues have had to do on the broadcast rounds over the course of recent days, including this morning, in trying to defend Lord Mandelson and the lack of judgment shown by the Prime Minister. I do not know what it is about the decades of scandals and being best friends with a notorious child trafficker and paedophile, which should have rung some alarm bells in No. 10 before this decision was taken. If I listened correctly, the Minister did not confirm to the Father of the House that all relevant materials will be published. Did the Prime Minister know about these emails prior to standing up at the Dispatch Box just yesterday to say he had confidence in Mr Mandelson, and does he retain the Labour Whip in the House of Lords?
Stephen Doughty
What I can commit to is that we will keep the House updated on these matters. A decisive decision has been made. As I have made very clear, all candidates are subject to routine, extensive vetting and background checks as a matter of course. The Prime Minister, in the light of the additional information, has asked the Foreign Secretary to withdraw Lord Mandelson as ambassador to Washington. In particular, the emails show that the depth and extent of Lord Mandelson’s relationship with Jeffrey Epstein was materially different from that known at the time of his appointment. But I agree, of course, with the right hon. Gentleman on the appalling crimes committed by Jeffrey Epstein, and the thoughts of all of us are with his victims, as they are every day.
Andrew Pakes (Peterborough) (Lab)
I associate myself with the comments that others have made about the disgusting crimes of Jeffrey Epstein.
Twenty-four years ago today, on 9/11, I was sat in the TUC Congress as a delegate when we were made aware of what had happened. May I put on the record my tribute to the first responders and public service workers in New York who came to the aid of people? Many of them are still paying the price today.
A lot has changed in politics in the past 24 years. One of the motivations that got me into public life was about the lack of accountability that we saw from senior Ministers when the Conservative party was in government, their failure to resign when scandals came up and the failure of Front Benchers to take action, so I welcome the swift action that this Government have taken now that new information has come to light. Can the Minister assure us that lessons will be learned and that, if these things arise again, this Government will uphold the highest standards and take the action needed to protect public life?
Stephen Doughty
I can absolutely assure my hon. Friend of that, and this is decisive action. He refers to the 11 September attacks, and I think we all remember where we were on that fateful and tragic day. That is why we remember the victims, particularly on the anniversary today.
Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)
May I just point out that it was as plain as day, after the exchanges between the Prime Minister and my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition yesterday, that Lord Mandelson could not possibly carry on in his role? Why did the Prime Minister delay—or did he have to wait to be told what to do by Morgan McSweeney? Who is going to be the new ambassador, and how quickly will the new ambassador be appointed at this absolutely critical time, when Russia is testing the defences of NATO countries and we are showing such a weak response?
Stephen Doughty
The hon. Gentleman, who I am sure has visited our embassy in Washington on many occasions, will know that we have an excellent and dedicated team there, as well of course in the Foreign Office in King Charles Street in London. They are working on many aspects of that crucial security, defence and economic relationship. We are working diligently in preparation for the state visit, and I commend them for that work.
The hon. Gentleman asked about new information. I have been very clear: in the light of the additional information and emails written by Lord Mandelson, the Prime Minister has asked the Foreign Secretary to withdraw him as ambassador. I have gone into the particular items, and in the light of that, and mindful of the victims of Epstein’s crimes, Lord Mandelson has been withdrawn as ambassador with immediate effect.
Perran Moon (Camborne and Redruth) (Lab)
The Prime Minister has acted swiftly and decisively. What a contrast with the Conservative party. I note that the shadow Foreign Secretary is not in her place today. What happened when she broke the ministerial code? The Conservatives promoted her. Does the Minister agree that we will not take lectures on ethics from them?
Stephen Doughty
I have been very clear that the Prime Minister has acted decisively on this matter and, in the light of that additional information, the Prime Minister asked the Foreign Secretary to withdraw Lord Mandelson as ambassador to Washington. That is decisive action and that is responding to that information, and I have explained the reasons for it.
Several hon. Members rose—
Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)
On the Foreign Affairs Committee, we have seen the high calibre of career diplomats who usually take up the most senior ambassadorial appointments, so it is not obvious to me why the British ambassador to the United States was a former MP. In the emails that have leaked overnight, it appears that Lord Mandelson thinks that to govern is to schmooze. He famously declared in an election victory speech that he was a fighter, not a quitter, yet he urged the convicted paedophile, Jeffrey Epstein, that to fight for early release was the right thing. And Lord Mandelson did not do the decent thing and quit. Does the Minister regret the original appointment?
Stephen Doughty
The hon. Gentleman asks about precedent. He will know that there is precedent, and we do have excellent ambassadors and high commissioners around the world—he and I have met many of them directly as they represent this country diligently. I have been clear: in the light of the additional information and emails written by Lord Mandelson, the Prime Minister has asked the Foreign Secretary to withdraw him as ambassador. In particular, Lord Mandelson’s suggestion that Jeffrey Epstein’s first conviction was wrongful and should be challenged is new information, and the emails show that the depth and extent of Lord Mandelson’s relationship with Jeffrey Epstein is materially different from that known at the time of his appointment.
Sir Roger Gale (Herne Bay and Sandwich) (Con)
The Minister is a decent man, and the House knows that the business of the House was delayed while he hurriedly had to rewrite the statement that he was expected to make, but he is stretching the bounds of credibility too far. Yesterday, the Prime Minister told the House that he had full confidence in a man who befriended the vilest of convicted paedophiles. He should not have been appointed in the first place—that was a gross error of judgment and everybody in this House knows it—and the Prime Minister has to take responsibility. Now that Lord Mandelson has gone, will there be a Cabinet Office inquiry into the manner in which Mandelson was negotiating with a convicted paedophile while he was a Minister?
Stephen Doughty
The right hon. Gentleman will understand why I will not comment from the Dispatch Box on his last remarks. What I will say is that the Prime Minister has acted decisively in the light of the new information, and he has taken the decision to ask the Foreign Secretary to withdraw Lord Mandelson as ambassador. Again, for the House’s information, the suggestion that Jeffrey Epstein’s first conviction was wrongful and should be challenged is new information. The emails show the depth and extent of the relationship was materially different from that known at the time of Lord Mandelson’s appointment. Again, in the light of that, and mindful of the victims of Epstein’s crimes, he has been withdrawn as ambassador with immediate effect.
Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)
The idea that our country should be represented in America or on the world stage by somebody who tried to get a paedophile out of prison early will fill us all with revulsion. Can the Minister be clearer? He has said that the Prime Minister asked the Foreign Secretary to withdraw the ambassador. He said the Prime Minister made the decision, but he also said in his statement that Mandelson resigned. Did he resign or was he sacked?
Stephen Doughty
I have been very clear: the Prime Minister asked the Foreign Secretary to withdraw Lord Mandelson as ambassador. That is the process, and he is no longer in his position. I agree with the hon. Member about our absolute revulsion across this House at Jeffrey Epstein’s crimes.
Rupert Lowe (Great Yarmouth) (Ind)
I concur with the comments about Charlie Kirk that the Minister made at the beginning. It shows that anybody who is brave enough to put themselves up for public service and try to change the world for the better faces such dangers and risks.
May I ask the Minister, first, to reassure us that we will have total transparency about the process that was followed in this ambassadorial appointment? Secondly, assuming we get over that hurdle, can he please explain to the House why the appointment of a man who described President Trump as a “danger to the world”, whom the Americans described as an “absolute moron”, who has close links with China and who has a history of misfeasance in public office was the right appointment for the relationship with the most important and powerful country in the world, and one that is essential to this country?
Stephen Doughty
On the hon. Member’s first comments, he and I fundamentally disagree on many issues, but we know that we conduct our robust debate in this House, in our media and in our political society, and we do not engage in any form of political violence. What has happened in the United States over the past 24 hours is simply appalling, and our thoughts are with all of Charlie Kirk’s family and friends. As somebody who worked very closely with our late colleagues Jo Cox and David Amess, it has shocked me to the core. I think it has shocked all of us to the core, and it can never be acceptable.
The hon. Member asked about the processes, and I have been very clear. All candidates for ambassador positions are subject to extensive vetting and background checks as a matter of course, and I refer him to the formal process outlined in the diplomatic service code. I assure him that we will keep the House updated on these matters.
Mr Gagan Mohindra (South West Hertfordshire) (Con)
While the whole House welcomes the withdrawal of Lord Mandelson as head of mission, can the Minister confirm whether he is still being paid as a civil servant?
Stephen Doughty
My understanding is that Lord Mandelson is still an employee, and proper employment processes will take place, but I will write to the hon. Member to confirm my answer to that question. Lord Mandelson has recently been asked to withdraw as ambassador, and I will come back to the hon. Member with a detailed answer, but I do not want in any way to inadvertently mislead the House on an important matter.
Tom Gordon (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (LD)
It seems that there is a broad consensus across the whole House that this felt as though it was a question of when, not if. So during the extended vetting procedure, was there ever any interference or pressure from either No. 10 or the Prime Minister?
Stephen Doughty
As the hon. Member will know, I simply am not going to go into the vetting procedures, which are conducted independently. He can certainly look at the detail of how vetting processes are under- taken in the diplomatic service code, which outlines the processes.
Sir Gavin Williamson (Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge) (Con)
The diplomatic service code states that diplomats’
“behaviour, action or inaction must not significantly disrupt or damage the performance or reputation of the Diplomatic Service.”
It also states that diplomats
“must…set out the facts and relevant issues truthfully, and correct any errors as soon as possible”.
In the light of that, did Lord Mandelson set out how many payments he had received from the sanctioned Russian oligarch Oleg Deripaska to accounts in this country, Switzerland or other areas, and has there been one set of rules for civil servants and another set of rules for friends of the Prime Minister and Jeffrey Epstein?
Stephen Doughty
The right hon. Gentleman’s question gets to the essence of the decision that has been taken. In the light of additional information in emails written by Lord Mandelson, the Prime Minister has asked the Foreign Secretary to withdraw him as ambassador to the United States. The emails show that the depth and extent of the relationship with Jeffrey Epstein are materially different from that known at the time of his appointment. In particular, Lord Mandelson’s suggestion that Jeffrey Epstein’s first conviction was wrongful and should be challenged is new information. The right hon. Gentleman is well aware of the procedures, and he knows that I do not have the documents relating to the vetting process in front of me.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
On behalf of my party, may I convey my support to the hon. Member for Washington and Gateshead South (Mrs Hodgson)? I was in her company yesterday and she is very much in our thoughts. I also, on behalf of my party, express deep sadness at the assassination of Charlie Kirk, a 31-year-old conservative influencer who engaged with young people across the United States of America. I know he is in heaven. I pray for his wife and children; I think we should all do that.
At times like this, it is essential that we have an ambassador in place to convey our sincere sympathy with our allies. The removal of Peter Mandelson is to be welcomed. In my humble opinion, he should never have been in the post in the first place. Does the Minister believe that it is imperative that we have an ambassador in place, and that they must have adequate history and qualifications, rather than our having a jobs-for-the-boys mentality? What changes will the Minister make to the appointment process to restore confidence in the role?
Stephen Doughty
The hon. Member is rightly known as one of the kindest and most generous Members of this House. I thank him for his comments about my hon. Friend the Member for Washington and Gateshead South (Mrs Hodgson) and the attack that she endured this morning. I wholeheartedly agree with his comments on Charlie Kirk. He can be assured that we are already conveying our condolences to the United States. I expect to be with the United States ambassador in London later today, where I will be able to do that in person.
From a practical point of view, as the hon. Member will know, many ambassadors or high commissioner posts are vacant for a time. We have excellent teams who then do that job. Of course, when ambassadors or high commissioners are travelling, there is a team in post who are able to represent this country and ensure our that interests are pursued. That is exactly what will happen in this case.
Dr Luke Evans (Hinckley and Bosworth) (Con)
This is about the Prime Minister’s judgment. By Mandelson’s own admission, there is more very embarrassing information coming, so the Prime Minister could have said to the House yesterday, “I will suspend him, pending further investigation,” but he did not; he backed him. Can the Prime Minister be 100% sure that, in making any trade deals, or in any negotiations, Mr Mandelson has not been compromised by the information that has now come forward, and will he commit to investigating that?
Stephen Doughty
I bring the hon. Member back to the fundamental point, which is that in the light of the additional information and emails written by Lord Mandelson, the Prime Minister asked the Foreign Secretary to withdraw him as ambassador.
Paul Holmes (Hamble Valley) (Con)
I associate myself with the Minister’s words about 9/11 and the untimely and tragic death of Charlie Kirk.
Yesterday, it was reported that in 2008 Lord Mandelson emailed Epstein and said that his conviction in the United States
“could not happen in Britain”,
and encouraged him to go for early release. The whole House can see that the Prime Minister has an issue when it comes to judgment, acting only when he is pushed to by events in this House. Will there be an investigation of Lord Mandelson’s meetings while he was ambassador, to see if there was any conflict with his current business interests? Will the Government remove the Whip from him in the House of Lords, yes or no? And will Lord Mandelson be entitled to severance pay after this sacking?
Stephen Doughty
On the question about the Whip, as an employee of the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, Lord Mandelson was on a leave of absence from the other place, so that is very clear. As I said, the emails show that the depth and the extent of Lord Mandelson’s relationship with Jeffrey Epstein was materially different from what was known about it at the time he was employed. In particular, his suggestion that Jeffrey Epstein’s first conviction was wrongful and should be challenged is new information, and that is why the Prime Minister has asked the Foreign Secretary to withdraw him as ambassador to Washington.
Graham Leadbitter (Moray West, Nairn and Strathspey) (SNP)
The Prime Minister was hiding behind process yesterday, and is doing the same today. Did the Prime Minister know about these messages before Prime Minister’s questions yesterday?
Stephen Doughty
I am updating the House in real time on actions and decisions that have been taken. I have been very clear about the new information that has come to light, and the decision that the Prime Minister has taken as a result.
John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)
The Minister claims that new information has come to light, which has resulted in the ambassador being sacked. Can he confirm that this is the only new information, and that all the other information was in the Prime Minister’s knowledge?
Stephen Doughty
I refer the hon. Gentleman to the comments I have already made.
Neil O’Brien
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. The Minister says that the only reason why Peter Mandelson had to resign was the additional information that he had campaigned for the early release of Epstein. The Government are not saying exactly what they did or did not know at the point of appointment. The only way for this House to know exactly what they knew is for the Government to publish the documents relating to his vetting. If the Government will not publish those documents, as the Minister says they will not, would it be possible for this House to attain those documents using the Humble Address mechanism?
BBC Monitoring Service
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 am extraordinarily grateful to the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis) for securing this important debate and sharing his remarks with me in advance. I can assure him that things have changed a lot since Michael Foot. This Labour Government are proud to support our nuclear deterrent and invest in our defence. I pay tribute to the right hon. Member’s extensive and long-standing expertise on this issue and many other related issues, and I am grateful for all the contributions.
I can confirm that the Government share the right hon. Member’s view that BBC Monitoring is a vital national asset, as many colleagues across the House have expressed. Indeed, I declare an interest personally because I have been a substantial user of its services in the past and am an avid listener of the BBC World Service, so I can truly attest to its incredible services and the work of its staff. For over 80 years, it has provided indispensable insight into world events, shaping our understanding of the global landscape, and high-quality and independent analysis, supporting that integrity of information worldwide, which lots of Members touched upon. Of course, those contribute to the Government’s wider efforts to combat misinformation, disinformation and harmful narratives produced by malign actors, hostile states and others around the world. It also provides a crucial insight into the international media landscape, and that informs our national security work, our foreign policy and our ability to take action on the world stage.
We must be clear about BBC Monitoring’s present value. As has been referred to, it has unique linguistic skills and deep regional expertise to fulfil the task of analysing media from across the globe. Whether that is state broadcast, social media, local news sites or official statements, it provides that texture, nuance and ground truth that enrich the quality of the evidence underpinning policy making for us and many others. It also helps us understand the deeper messages that Governments and others, but also their own people and audiences, are saying around the world. The value of that work should not be underestimated and, indeed, it is valued by colleagues in not only the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, but the Ministry of Defence and the Cabinet Office, as well as many others.
Of course, BBC Monitoring’s value is not confined to Whitehall; it is also an internal radar for the BBC itself. It identifies emerging narratives, spots developing stories, provides BBC News and the World Service with early warning, and helps them get ahead of the curve with their reporting and deeper conceptual analysis, so this is a symbiotic relationship. Of course, it also supports commercial partners and others with their insight and analysis. We fully endorse that service.
Although the BBC is responsible for the staffing, administration and editorial direction of the service, it is provided under a specific agreement—to which the right hon. Gentleman referred—between the BBC and the Government, enabling collaborative discussions about the Government’s priorities for BBC Monitoring to consider in its wider prioritisation. That provides us with the assurance that the service continues to evolve in line with the changing media environment and the need to understand it, and ensures that it continues to provide value for the licence fee payer and the nation.
The Cabinet Office is the lead Department, managing the relationship, while the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office provides ministerial oversight. Of course, as the right hon. Gentleman noted, the service is funded through the licence fee as part of the BBC’s public service remit. I am happy to write to him further on some of the details of the current funding arrangements. As I have mentioned, it derives some revenue from commercial customers and partnerships as well. It has many customers, including non-governmental organisations, intergovernmental and research bodies, media organisations, think-tanks and businesses. He asked how much the monitoring service costs the BBC. It has a range of funding streams, as I have set out, and ultimately it is for the BBC to approve the budget.
The right hon. Gentleman also asked about the relationship with Open Source Enterprise. I can confirm that the service maintains a strong and highly effective information-sharing partnership with OSE under an annually reviewed memorandum. The two organisations continue to work together to cover the globe and fill in their respective gaps. They share expertise and collaborate on technological innovation.
The right hon. Gentleman is right to focus on the future. We want to see BBC Monitoring thrive. A key part of that is ensuring that the organisation is not standing still. It is embracing new technology to enhance its capabilities, including by integrating AI into its workflows, in accordance of course with BBC permitted usage and protocols. That will see staff using cutting-edge tools to sift through vast quantities of data at speed, allowing analysts to focus on providing the high-level insight and nuanced judgment that human expertise alone can supply. That will mean a combination of human insight and AI. This is a rapidly changing field, and BBC Monitoring is testing AI tools to help journalists keep track of what is being said in different outlets—that follows BBC rules and is designed to give a broad overview of the landscape that they are reporting on—but I should reiterate that decisions will still be made by people, not by machines. Indeed, BBC staff undertake mandatory AI training courses.
At the same time, BBC Monitoring has chosen to focus on providing deeper insights and context in its work. It now produces fewer reports but each carries greater analytical value. In 2024, it produced 78,832 reports; that is a reduction on the original target but reflects a deliberate and sensible shift away from basic translation and summarising, and towards analysis that delivers real impact. Having used that service before, I can say that it really does provide critical insight. Reports do not always draw a clear line between monitoring and analysis, recognising that both are part of the same effort to understand narratives. I am pleased to see those advancements and I am sure that they will continue in the years ahead.
The existing charter is due to expire at the end of 2027, and that will be an opportunity, as has been discussed elsewhere, to consider a wide range of issues. That will ensure that the BBC has a sustainable funding model for all its important work, including BBC Monitoring. My colleagues in the Department for Culture, Media and Sport have made it clear that they are keeping an open mind about the future of the licence fee and will think creatively about all the options to future-proof our national broadcaster.
Adam Jogee
I am grateful to the Minister for giving way and congratulate him and his husband on their recent marriage.
I am just reading “The UK’s new approach to Africa: summary of consultation”. Point 47 states:
“We also heard that parts of the UK’s soft power appeal can be intangible.”
May I invite the Minister to confirm that both the World Service and the Monitoring service are, in his view, key parts of UK soft power?
Stephen Doughty
I absolutely agree that they are. As I said, I am an admirer of them, and they are admired around the globe—I hear that repeatedly on my travels, as do ministerial colleagues. And I thank my hon. Friend for his kind remarks on my marriage.
I want to be clear. Of course I cannot pre-empt the outcome of the licence fee process—that is for other colleagues—or make specific comments about future funding arrangements today, but I can give the House and the right hon. Member for New Forest East this assurance: he should be in no doubt about our high regard for BBC Monitoring. Its value and readiness for the future is understood at the highest levels, and we will continue to work with the BBC, DCMS and others across Government to ensure that its work continues and that we are all able to benefit from its unique expertise and analysis.
Question put and agreed to.
Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe: UK Delegation
Stephen Doughty Excerpts(1 month, 3 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 right hon. Lord Jones of Penybont has been appointed as a full member of the United Kingdom delegation to the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe in place of my hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley (Jake Richards).
The right hon. Baroness Coffey has been appointed as a substitute member of the United Kingdom delegation to the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe in place of Baroness Helic.
[HCWS910]