Nigeria: Freedom of Religion or Belief
Stephen Doughty Excerpts(4 months, 4 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Stephen Doughty)
I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for North Northumberland (David Smith) for securing the debate and for his tireless work as special envoy. I thank hon. Members from across the House for their thoughtful contributions. I will try to respond to as many of the points that have been raised as I can in the time available.
I declare an interest as a Christian who has worked with Open Doors and others in the past to draw attention to cases where people are persecuted for their beliefs. I genuinely welcome the chance to keep this important matter in the spotlight. I have engaged with the issue for many years, including when I was shadow Minister for Africa. I was glad to hear my hon. Friend mention Nigerian communities in the UK. I have had the pleasure of meeting Nigerian Christian communities in my constituency of Cardiff South and Penarth, and I know the amazing contribution that they make, alongside Nigerian communities across the UK.
My hon. Friend is right that this issue should interest, concern and deeply shock us all because of the horrific things that we have seen. The brutality of the attacks against religious communities in Nigeria is truly appalling. The cold-blooded massacre of over 200 Christians in Yelwata, Benue state, last October was particularly shocking. We have heard many terrible statistics today, but last year’s Open Doors world watch list reported that armed groups murdered 3,100 Christians for their faith in Nigeria in 2025, and abducted a further 3,000. It is shocking to hear that extremists have stormed villages, killed worshippers, kidnapped families and burned homes, and we have heard some truly horrific examples today.
Nigeria’s constitution promises freedom of religion or belief for all. Every person in that country deserves the right to practise their faith or belief safely, without fear or persecution. When we defend freedom of religion or belief, we help to build trust between communities, strengthen Nigeria’s social fabric and create conditions for lasting peace and prosperity for everyone. That is why Nigeria is one of the 10 countries prioritised for targeted action in the Government’s strategy on freedom of religion or belief, launched last July.
We welcome the President’s commitment to religious freedoms and his pledge to safeguard freedom of belief for all Nigerians. I am glad that my hon. Friend the Member for North Northumberland recognised that we are working closely with the Nigerian authorities, along with communities and faith leaders directly, to uphold and protect these freedoms. Indeed, my colleague Baroness Chapman, the Minister for Africa, continues to be engaged closely in this topic, and she is extremely concerned about the violence against many communities, including religious communities, in Nigeria.
My hon. Friend asked about the work that we are doing to raise these issues at the highest levels. Baroness Chapman spoke directly with Nigeria’s Foreign Minister Tuggar about freedom of religion or belief in November. Our high commissioner and his team engage with local authorities, communities and faith leaders in affected areas, including with groups such as the Governors’ Forum, the National Peace Committee and the National Human Rights Commission.
We know that criminality, intercommunal violence and insecurity make things worse for religious communities. That is why we focus on tackling the root causes of instability to protect people’s rights, whether they come from Christian communities or Muslim communities, or whether they are humanists, have different beliefs or, indeed, have no beliefs. We need to create a society where everybody is able to live and to practise in the way that they wish. I am glad that my hon. Friend mentioned the case of Mubarak Bala, which I remember raising on many occasions in the past. We highlight violations of freedom of religion or belief on the international stage and push for joint action, including at the UN, the G7, as part of the Article 18 Alliance and in bodies like the Human Rights Council.
My hon. Friend and other hon. Members rightly pointed to the violent extremist groups, such as Boko Haram and Islamic State West Africa, which continue to attack people in shocking ways in the north-east of Nigeria. They target anyone who rejects their ideology. My hon. Friend made the important point that it is not just Christians, but the mainly Muslim population of the north-east who suffer terribly as a result. However, the Christian minority faces extreme persecution through mass kidnappings and murders. Those are utterly unacceptable and have shocked the world.
Intercommunal violence and criminal banditry are linked, and they fuel deaths and tensions. Criminals smuggle weapons into Nigeria, affecting both Muslims and Christians, and they use motorbikes and all sorts of other techniques to evade the authorities. Conflict over land and resources in Nigeria often takes on a religious aspect as tensions rise and violence escalates. Those ideologies can sometimes be used as psychological warfare, with attacks on churches and mosques being seen as acts of revenge.
However, peaceful dialogue can resolve disputes before they escalate. Since our last debate on this issue in 2024, we have rolled out the UK’s Strengthening Peace and Resilience in Nigeria programme across Kaduna, Katsina, Benue and Plateau states; I was glad to hear that referred to. The programme is doing very important work in reducing violence by strengthening local peace and justice systems and supporting practical, community-led solutions. One early success is that 5,000 internally displaced people have returned and resettled after a peace agreement between the Bassa and Egbura communities in Nasarawa state. If we do not tackle the root causes of insecurity, religious communities will remain at risk of these terrible atrocities.
My hon. Friend mentioned our co-operation with Nigeria more broadly on security issues, which I am very pleased to play a role in alongside my colleague, the Minister for Africa. Last July, we hosted the third security and defence partnership dialogue with Nigeria.
Stephen Doughty
I will be generous and give way to the hon. Gentleman in his new position.
Mike Wood
The tragic case of Deborah Samuel Yakubu is a reminder of the culture of impunity that has been allowed to develop in too many parts of Nigeria. Can the Minister assure the House that the UK Government do everything and take every opportunity to stress the need for improved security in particularly vulnerable parts of Nigeria to ensure that people are safe to exercise their religious beliefs?
Stephen Doughty
I absolutely can. I mentioned a range of different levels at which we do that—indeed, the Minister for Africa has raised a number of these issues at the highest level—and we continue to engage. The high commissioner and the team do an excellent job of engaging at all levels to raise these cases. That is why we have this dialogue, the SPRiNG programme and the investment that we are making across a range of areas with the Nigerian authorities, who are close partners in many respects and on many issues not just in Nigeria, but more broadly.
We agreed to strengthen our co-operation and provide practical support to defend against these threats. That includes very practical steps such as sharing operational lessons to counter new tactics being used by terrorists, including the use of drones and improvised explosive devices, which have tragically been used against civilians in too many locations.
The UK is trying to address the wider issues of poverty and humanitarian concerns. We support hundreds of thousands of people through our humanitarian assistance and resilience programme. I assure you, Madam Deputy Speaker, as well as the special envoy that we will keep working with the Nigerian authorities and faith leaders to address the shocking violence against people who are simply trying to follow their faith or belief.
I particularly welcome the concerns raised about Christian communities, but this issue affects many. We will work at every level to ensure that this violence is brought to an end, and we will also work globally on these issues. I really praise the special envoy for the work that he does on these important issues.
Question put and agreed to.
Human Rights Abuses: Magnitsky Sanctions
Stephen Doughty Excerpts(5 months 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)
Let me start by thanking the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) for securing this debate. He always speaks with conviction and passion; he has been absolutely consistent on these issues for a very long time, and I recognise his leadership as chair of the all-party parliamentary group on Magnitsky sanctions and reparation. We fully support him and every colleague in this House who stands up for our values and has been sanctioned as a result—including your colleague the hon. Member for Sussex Weald (Ms Ghani), Madam Deputy Speaker.
I am grateful for all the contributions today, which have been constructively critical. I assure the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green and all Members that our teams will take the individual cases raised seriously, and I will try my best in the time available to respond to all the key points.
I emphasise from the start that I share the ambition of Members across this House. I take on board the challenge—indeed, I made many similar points in opposition on these issues in similar debates. I emphasise to colleagues the extraordinary work of the officials at the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office and of other teams across Government who work on these issues. I have to be honest: resource is finite, but we have invested substantially and we will continue to do so. We have set ambitious targets, including on enforcement, which I will come to, but I pay tribute to those people and recognise that they have been awarded for that work within the Department, and rightly so. That work is having a genuine impact, because sanctions are one of the most powerful tools we have to protect our security and advance our foreign policy, including in the areas described today.
We impose sanctions to isolate those responsible, to restrict their ability to act and to change their behaviour, as well as to send deterrent and other messages beyond those we target. However, sanctions must be focused, enforceable, legally sound and backed by the right resources and credible evidence. We maintain the integrity of our regime through the strictest interpretation and the solidity of the evidence underpinning sanctions. I want colleagues to understand that, because it is important for the functioning of the regime as a whole.
Since this Government came in, we have set ambitious targets on sanctions, and we have introduced more than 1,000 new sanctions designations against individuals, entities and ships. We have laid 15 new statutory instruments before Parliament, including to create a new regime on irregular migration, to which the shadow Minister referred. We have already designated 32 individuals and entities under that. We have played a leading role in the snapback of sanctions on Iran’s nuclear and ballistic missile programmes. Those are just some of the examples showing that sanctions are not just symbolic gestures, but practical tools that are tightly focused and have a meaningful impact.
The UK covers Magnitsky-style sanctions under two regimes: the global human rights regime and the global anti-corruption regime. Under this Government, we have delivered more than 60 designations under those regimes. In 2025, we sanctioned 29 individuals and entities under the global human rights regime, going after scam centres in Cambodia and targets in Sri Lanka, Georgia and the west bank. Many colleagues have raised those areas and issues.
We have also delivered 164 sanctions taking action on human rights violations, war atrocities and gender-based violence. We have imposed sanctions on individuals, entities and organisations responsible for supporting or inciting violence against Palestinian communities in the west bank. In June 2025, we sanctioned the Israeli Government Ministers Itamar Ben-Gvir and Bezalel Smotrich in their personal capacities, in response to their repeated incitement of violence against Palestinian communities. I mentioned the Cambodian scam centre package, which froze 20 UK properties worth more than £125 million, directly disrupting criminal activity in the heart of London. That activity impacted on British citizens on our streets, but was also linked to global corruption networks.
In November 2024, under the global anti-corruption regime, we sanctioned three notorious kleptocrats who had siphoned wealth from their countries, along with their enablers, including family and financial fixers. We froze more than £150 million in UK assets and sent a strong signal of support to Angola and other countries. We targeted an illicit gold network centred on a Kenyan-British smuggler who was using corruption to move gold out of southern Africa. In April 2025, we sanctioned corrupt officials and judges in Georgia and Guatemala and a pro-Russian network in Moldova, exposing their activities and supporting democracy and the rule of law.
Magnitsky sanctions are not our only tool. We also have the wider geographic regimes. Just in December, we sanctioned nine individuals and entities under the Syria regulations for abuses committed under the Assad regime and during last year’s coastal violence. We have to ensure that sanctions are robust, legally sound and evidence-based and that they stand up to the most robust scrutiny, and I am sure that colleagues understand why.
Russia has been highlighted by many Members today. We have taken concerted action on that front, and it is making a significant difference. Last year, we sanctioned more than 700 individuals, entities and ships under the Russian regime. We were the first G7 country to sanction all four Russian oil majors. The US followed suit, and that has had a direct impact: Russia’s oil revenues have dropped to their lowest level since the invasion began. I know that there is strong support across at least the majority of the House on those issues, and I have listed off the many other Magnitsky sanctions designation packages.
I am conscious of the time, and I will try to respond to some of the points that have been raised. It is worth making the point that often there are similarities between the different regimes. We co-ordinate very closely with partners, particularly the European Union, the United States, Canada and others. We try to bring the weight of the world to bear on these issues at crucial times, but I emphasise to colleagues that the legal bases for our sanctions regimes are different. There are different legal and judicial processes, and that is why there are often differences. Because of where nexuses of individuals and entities are, there are also often differences in where our sanctions can have the biggest impact. Sometimes that is what underpins what otherwise appears to be incongruity between regimes, but we always try to bring them together.
The right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green specifically mentioned the Cambodian scam centres and Chen Zhi. I emphasise that Cambodia arrested Chen Zhi and extradited him to China this week, and that the National Bank of Cambodia liquidated Prince Bank on 8 January, so there has been a significant impact as a result of that package. Obviously, the sanctions are only one part of the response to these networks; there are other measures that countries can choose to take in response to very serious allegations.
A lot of questions have rightly been raised about Sudan and the work that the Government are doing on that issue. The Foreign Secretary, the Minister for Africa and I place a great deal of importance on that, and building a consensus on ending that horrific war is a core part of the Government’s diplomatic efforts, including with other regional partners and the UAE. The Foreign Secretary is in regular contact with the Emirati Foreign Minister, and the Prime Minister has also spoken to his counterpart. We will continue to use all necessary means to bring an end to the war in Sudan, which is having a devastating impact on its citizens.
A number of colleagues have asked questions about Hong Kong. Of course, we call on Beijing to repeal Hong Kong’s national security law. We are closely monitoring the situation there, and we keep sanctions under close review. I am not going to speculate on future designations, for obvious reasons, but particular cases have been raised. The case of Jimmy Lai remains an utmost priority. Diplomats continue to press for consular access, and they attended his trial. The Prime Minister has raised Mr Lai’s case directly with President Xi, and we are in close contact with his family and representatives. Of course, we want to make sure that he receives proper treatment, and we are deeply concerned about some of the allegations made about his treatment in prison.
On the case of Ryan Cornelius, I want to acknowledge that his family have been in Parliament today. We continue to support them and, indeed, the family of Charles Ridley as well. The former Foreign Secretary raised their cases with the UAE Foreign Minister last year, and I understand that he and the Minister for the Middle East, my hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln (Mr Falconer), met the families in September. We support their clemency applications, and of course we raise those and other cases with appropriate authorities at the right time.
Jagtar Singh Johal’s case has also been mentioned. We continue to raise serious concerns about that with the Government of India at every possible opportunity.
We have not stopped our Myanmar sanctions. Since the coup, we have sanctioned 25 individuals and 39 entities.
Very important concerns have been raised about Roman Abramovich and Chelsea football club’s assets. I draw colleagues’ attention to what we have said on that, and to the Prime Minister’s action on the licence.
Colleagues have also expressed strong concerns about the shadow Attorney General. As the Prime Minister set out yesterday, the Conservatives have some very serious questions to answer on this issue, which is completely unfathomable to me and deeply disappointing.
On the question of enforcement—
Stephen Doughty
The hon. Gentleman mentions the importance of reporting to Parliament, and I can assure him that I have been scrutinised in this place many times. I have sent a letter to the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee, and to Lord Ricketts in the other place, to set out the full detail of all the work we have done. I am committed to reporting regularly to Parliament on these issues; indeed, I have held private meetings with many Members from across the House to discuss their concerns, and I am absolutely committed to continuing to do that.
On the issue of enforcement, I think some of the criticism was somewhat unwarranted. This is an issue that I have regularly championed. I agree with the principles of what colleagues have said, but I point out that in November the National Crime Agency announced that, based on the intelligence it gained in Operation Destabilise, it supported international law enforcement partners in seizing $24 million and over €2.6 million from Russian money laundering networks with links to drugs and organised crime. There have been over 128 arrests as a result of that operation alone, with over £25 million seized in cash and cryptocurrency—another issue that has been mentioned. In 2025 alone, OFSI issued four major civil monetary penalties, totalling over £900,000—I think some of the figures Members have used are not quite accurate—and for its part, HMRC concluded a £1.1 million compound settlement for trade sanctions breaches in May.
The shadow Minister asked for figures. I am happy to write to her with further details, but to give one example, OTSI has received reports or referrals about 146 potential breaches of sanctions and it has a number of investigations under way. I do not want to comment on them, but I do want to assure hon. Members that we take all the considerations they have raised very seriously. Sanctions, including Magnitsky-related sanctions, are an important tool, and we will continue to look at all such possibilities. I welcome the challenge, and we will continue to rigorously pursue not only the designation of such regimes, but, crucially, the enforcement that makes the difference.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I call Sir Iain Duncan Smith to wind up very quickly.
Chagossians and the Diego Garcia Base Treaty
Stephen Doughty Excerpts(5 months, 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 Diego Garcia treaty, signed by the UK on 22 May 2025, secures the future of the strategically critical UK-US military base on Diego Garcia. This base is vital for UK defence and intelligence capabilities, and the safety and security of the British people.
The Government also worked to ensure that the treaty includes important provisions for Chagossians, including the establishment of a trust fund to benefit the community and a route to resettle the islands of the Chagos archipelago other than Diego Garcia. These and other related Chagossian issues have been the subject of significant debate in both Houses. The Government are pleased to update the House on recent developments.
Chagossian Trust Fund
Under the terms of the treaty, the UK will capitalise a £40 million trust fund for the benefit of Chagossians, which will be established by Mauritius. On 12 December, the Mauritian Government approved introduction of primary legislation to establish the trust fund. The Bill will be published on the website of the Mauritian Parliament and can be viewed on the Government Information Service portal of the Government of Mauritius https://gis.govmu.org It confirms the principle that the trust fund will be operated for Chagossians, by Chagossians.
Decisions on the use of funds will be taken by a trust fund management board. The board will comprise 12 members, seven of whom will be Chagossian, ensuring majority representation. The chair of the trust fund will be a Chagossian, selected by the Chagossian members of the board. Following extensive representations and engagement by this Government, the Bill also now confirms that a UK-based Chagossian representative will sit on the board alongside representatives living in Mauritius and the Seychelles. The UK High Commissioner to Mauritius will also attend board meetings.
We welcome these commitments by Mauritius which will ensure the trust fund reflects the full spectrum of perspectives within the Chagossian community.
Eligibility to Participate in a Programme of Resettlement
The treaty enables Mauritius to develop a programme of resettlement on islands other than Diego Garcia. This agreement is the only viable path to resettlement on the archipelago. The UK Government have been in talks with Mauritius to ensure that this programme is open to all Chagossians, irrespective of their country of residence. The Mauritian Government confirmed on 12 December that eligibility to resettle will apply to Chagossians born on the archipelago before 31 December 1973, and children of parents either of whom were born on the archipelago before that date.
UK-based Chagossians who do not hold Mauritian citizenship and meet these criteria will be eligible for Mauritian citizenship, and therefore able to participate in any future programme of resettlement. All Chagossians will remain eligible for British citizenship under the current citizenship pathway. Chagossians will be able to hold both British and Mauritian citizenship.
Mauritius has also confirmed that civil status documents issued by the Government of Mauritius will continue to record the place of birth as the Chagos archipelago for all of those born there. Where, for any reason, this has not been the case, the Government of Mauritius will review and amend the documents as necessary.
Mauritian Criminal Code Amendment
On 29 October, the Mauritius Criminal Code (Amendment No.2) Act 2025 came into force, repealing section 76B of the Mauritian criminal code and removing the offence of
“misrepresenting the sovereignty of Mauritius by producing, distributing, supply or marketing any coin, stamp, official map or official object or document.”
Concerns had been raised that Chagossians might face prosecution for expressing their affiliation with the UK. Although no one was ever prosecuted under this law, we recognise the impact it was having on the Chagossian community and welcome the steps taken by the Mauritian Government to have section 76B of the Mauritian criminal code repealed.
Heritage Visits to the Chagos Archipelago
Both the UK Government and the Republic of Mauritius recognise the importance of heritage visits for the Chagossian community and remain committed to facilitating a programme of heritage visits to the Chagos archipelago, including Diego Garcia. We will work together to resume a programme of visits to the archipelago.
Chagossian Support Programme—Supporting Chagossians in our Communities
Separate to the treaty, the Government are increasing support for Chagossians living in the UK through both new and existing initiatives. This includes support for newly arrived British citizens and a wide range of projects that will benefit the Chagossian community.
Chagossian Contact Group
The Chagossian contact group provides Chagossians with a role in decision-making on the UK Government’s support for their community. On 11 November, we committed to exploring ways to enhance the group by increasing its transparency and frequency, provided that the contact group’s existing members agreed. FCDO officials have discussed this with contact group members, who are now consulting with the wider community ahead of making decisions. We will provide a further update once these are received.
[HCWS1166]
Oral Answers to Questions
Stephen Doughty Excerpts(6 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Rachel Taylor (North Warwickshire and Bedworth) (Lab)
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Stephen Doughty)
We collaborate closely with our international partners to deter and disrupt the perpetrators of malicious cyber-activity and to hold them to account. Just last month, the United Kingdom, along with the United States and Australia, sanctioned Media Land, a major Russian cyber-crime syndicate that enabled ransomware and phishing attacks against UK businesses, underscoring our commitment to tackling illicit cyber-activity.
Rachel Taylor
The past year has seen cyber-attacks on some of our biggest household names, including Jaguar Land Rover, putting jobs and livelihoods in my constituency of North Warwickshire and Bedworth at risk. What action is the Minister taking with the UK’s partners overseas to tackle this growing threat, both in our country and throughout the world?
Stephen Doughty
My hon. Friend raises a crucial issue on behalf of her constituents. Incidents such as the attack on Jaguar Land Rover serve as a stark reminder that cyber-threat is not just an abstract concept, but one that has real-world costs. We are working closely with international partners. We are a founding member of the Counter Ransomware Initiative that in October led the agreement of supply chain resilience guidance endorsed by 67 countries, and we are working closely with other partners through the United Nations and other bodies.
Rishi Sunak (Richmond and Northallerton) (Con)
In the past 12 months, nationally significant cyber-incidents have doubled, many backed by hostile foreign states, as the Minister will know. The National Cyber Force is clear that offensive cyber-operations play a part in ensuring our national security, so given the environment in which our adversaries are co-operating, will the Minister continue to deepen our co-operation with our Five Eyes partners in this domain, not least because I know at first hand how much they value the particular capabilities that the UK brings to bear in this area?
Stephen Doughty
The former Prime Minister is absolutely right to raise this issue. The level of hostile state activity is significant and it is growing. That is why we are working closely with international partners. We have provided almost £30 million in support for international cyber-security capacity building, including for Ukraine and working with other partners. We are also working on issues such as sanctions: we have sanctioned 26 cyber-criminal support entities linked to malicious cyber-activity and 16 Russian military intelligence officers, including an attribution of cyber-units within the GRU, so our co-operation with Five Eyes partners and others is crucial.
Mr Andrew Snowden (Fylde) (Con)
The whole House and country should rightly be concerned about cyber-attacks, from malign cyber-activity directed at MPs and the Electorate Commission, to Chinese companies linked to global malicious cyber-campaigns. When will this Government stand up to China and address this threat? When will they send a strong message to the Chinese Communist party by blocking its super-embassy application and finally placing China on the enhanced tier of the foreign influence registration scheme?
Stephen Doughty
I have been very clear about just how seriously we take the activity from different states in the cyber domain, and its significance is growing. As I have pointed out, we are working closely with international partners. The hon. Gentleman will understand that I will not go into the detail of all our work on that, but I commend the work of our National Cyber Security Centre with businesses, individuals and this place to ensure that our resilience is in place. We will continue to work with international partners to counter these threats.
Mike Reader (Northampton South) (Lab)
Dr Al Pinkerton (Surrey Heath) (LD)
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Stephen Doughty)
We are working across Government to build a new strategic partnership with the EU. The Foreign Secretary and I meet regularly with European partners, and I will be doing so later this week. Last month I joined the Foreign Secretary and the Defence Secretary for the first foreign and security policy dialogue with EU High Representative Kallas. Collaborative relationships are key to building this partnership and delivering what the British people want—on growth, the cost of living, security and action to counter irregular migration.
Dr Pinkerton
With growing Chinese espionage, Russian aggression on the European continent and a capricious President in the United States, it is more important than ever that we deepen our security co-operation with our European allies. Can I ask the Minister explicitly whether he recognises, as I do, that the UK’s deepest possible participation in the EU’s Security Action for Europe scheme is vital to common European security? What have he and the Government done to try to prompt the restart of the negotiations with the European Union that sadly broke down last week?
Stephen Doughty
Our security and defence partnership is broad. The UK entered discussions with the EU on the SAFE scheme in good faith, recognising mutual strategic interest and continued commitment. We were clear with the EU that we were prepared to make a fair financial contribution that reflects the potential for a mutually beneficial relationship and value for the taxpayer. However, we have always said that we will not sign deals unless they are genuinely in the national interest, and in this case the deal on offer from the EU did not pass that test. But I am absolutely confident that our wider defence and industrial relationships are not affected. In fact, our deal with Norway on frigates, our £8 billion agreement with Turkey for the purchase of 20 Typhoon jets, and our agreement with Germany on joint export campaigns in relation to Boxer armoured vehicles all very much represent the very best of European defence industrial co-operation.
Dame Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)
I know that the Minister appreciates the need for the EU and the UK to work very closely together in the face of global security threats and trade challenges. In his talks with EU colleagues, will he impress on them the damage that the proposed EU steel tariffs would do to not just our UK steel industry but manufacturing across the UK and the EU?
Stephen Doughty
My hon. Friend has always been a very strong advocate for the steel industry. I can confirm that we are absolutely committed to defending our steel industry. We are seeking an urgent clarification from the EU Commission on its proposals. We need to find a bilateral solution. Any EU measures must, of course, be consistent with the trade and co-operation agreement and uphold summit commitments and, indeed, our Windsor framework obligations.
David Williams (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Lab)
Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Con)
Last month, the Government buckled under pressure about their lack of consultation with the Chagossian people on the shameful handover of sovereign British territory to Mauritius. If the process is genuinely intended to inform policy, what steps will the Minister take to ensure that the views expressed to the House of Lords International Relations and Defence Committee are free from external interference? How will its findings inform the Government’s decision on the future of the Chagos islands?
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Stephen Doughty)
As the hon. Gentleman knows, the Committee is engaging a wide range of Chagossians to ascertain their views on the implications of the treaty and will produce a report before Christmas. We have seen no evidence of Mauritian interference, and it is important to recognise the wide range of views in the Chagossian community. I very much look forward to reading the IRDC’s report when it is completed.
Andrew Rosindell
I hope the Minister will check that there are actually Chagossians and not outsiders taking part in that consultation. Anyway, let us try something else.
Given last week’s report that the Chancellor had a £4 billion surplus rather than a £20 billion deficit as previously suggested, will the Minister explain why the Government are pressing ahead with this eye-wateringly expensive £35 billion gift of British sovereign territory to Mauritius? Does the Minister not agree that scrapping that atrocious deal would be a better way to help the Chancellor restore fiscal credibility and save British taxpayers’ money?
Stephen Doughty
No matter how many times the hon. Gentleman repeats his wild claims about the cost of the deal, they are no more correct. I have been clear on multiple occasions about the cost of the deal. We will not scrimp on the national security of this country. The base is crucial for our security and that of our allies, and we have set out the costs very clearly.
Mrs Sureena Brackenridge (Wolverhampton North East) (Lab)
James Naish (Rushcliffe) (Lab)
Stephen Doughty
My hon. Friend raises a crucial point. We work closely with our partners on that issue and support democratic institutions and values, including through the Westminster Foundation for Democracy. We fund election observation, champion media freedom and provide leadership in different fora, and we will set that as a key priority as incoming co-chair of the Open Government Partnership.
Zöe Franklin (Guildford) (LD)
Caroline Voaden (South Devon) (LD)
Prior to last week’s talks with leaders of the British overseas territories, concerning reports suggested that the Government were planning to cave in to pressure from the British Virgin Islands, the epicentre of billions of pounds of tax evasion, and allow it to restrict public access to a register of company share ownership. Will the Secretary of State inform the House of the outcome of last week’s talks and reassure the British public that the Government will force British overseas territories to comply with the law and make these registers publicly available?
Stephen Doughty
The hon. Member can find the communiqué online. The Economic Secretary to the Treasury and I met the leaders from the overseas territories last week at a successful Joint Ministerial Council, and I again set out clearly our expectations on registers of beneficial ownership. I would point out that all OTs with financial centres have committed to upholding international tax standards, including those on tax transparency and exchange of information, as well as base erosion and profit sharing.
Harpreet Uppal (Huddersfield) (Lab)
Since the beginning of 2025, the United Nations Office for the Co-ordination of Humanitarian Affairs has documented more than 1,600 attacks in the west bank perpetrated by Israeli settlers. What more can the UK do in terms of sanctions for illegal settler outposts and settlement trade and to hold the Israeli Government to account?
Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab)
On Donald Trump’s threats of military action against oil-rich Venezuela, reports suggest that British military personnel are aboard the US warships heading towards Venezuela. Will the Foreign Secretary therefore make it clear that Britain will have no involvement at all, including through troops on US warships, in any Trump-led military intervention there?
Stephen Doughty
As the Foreign Secretary made clear a moment ago, the UK is not involved in these operations. There have been reports overnight, of which we do not know the full details and which the US will respond to. We have been very clear that we expect all nations to operate in line with international law.
Dr Ben Spencer (Runnymede and Weybridge) (Con)
The Elections Act 2022 expanded the franchise to over 3 million British nationals living overseas. As MPs, we have a duty to represent those who have lived in our constituencies, but we do not know who they are or where they are. How can our embassies help?
David Mundell (Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale) (Con)
The child nutrition fund is one of the most effective ways to enhance the impact and value for money of official development assistance spending by mobilising domestic resources, with philanthropic and private capital having the potential to multiply UK ODA contributions as much as sixfold. In 2023, the UK Government committed to a £16 million contribution to fund. Will Ministers confirm that the commitment will be honoured despite the changes in ODA spending?
Stephen Doughty
The right hon. Member has been a long-standing champion of these issues. We reaffirmed our commitment to addressing malnutrition at the Nutrition for Growth summit in 2025, as he knows, and we continue to support the child nutrition fund, which funds treatment of acute malnutrition. We are providing technical assistance and are supporting countries to integrate nutrition across sectors.
Baggy Shanker (Derby South) (Lab/Co-op)
With winter setting in and thousands of Gazan children still acutely malnourished, will my right hon. Friend work with international partners so we can go further and faster to help those children?
Jessica Morden (Newport East) (Lab)
We have seen a year of protests in Georgia against democratic backsliding and crackdowns on political opponents, which are deeply concerning, including for those in Newport with strong links to Kutaisi. What more can be done with allies to increase diplomatic pressure?
Stephen Doughty
We are deeply concerned by the democratic backsliding in Georgia and have issued a number of sanctions, as my hon. Friend will be aware. I have raised concerns directly with Georgian Dream representatives and will continue to follow the situation closely.
Sir Oliver Dowden (Hertsmere) (Con)
Today is UAE National Day, marking 54 years since its full independence. In that time, it has become one of our nation’s staunchest allies and a key investor, benefiting constituencies up and down the country. Will the Minister join me, as chairman of the all-party parliamentary group, in congratulating the UAE and recommitting to this key strategic relationship?
Antarctic Strategy
Stephen Doughty Excerpts(6 months, 1 week ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Stephen Doughty)
The Government are today publishing a UK Antarctic strategy. This sets out the UK’s aims and ambitions for the Antarctic for the next decade.
The strategy brings together the UK’s approach to the Antarctic under a single document for the first time. It outlines the full range of UK interests in Antarctica that shape our engagement in the region, and our priorities looking ahead.
At a time of growing global interest in Antarctica, our approach will see the UK continuing to play an active and leading role in the Antarctic treaty system, upholding our rights and responsibilities and reiterating the importance of international collaboration. We will also safeguard our sovereignty of the British Antarctic Territory, ensuring the effective administration of the territory.
Our long-term strategic objective remains for the Antarctic to be a place dedicated to peace and science, characterised by co-operation.
The UK will focus activity across four areas.
Governance and UK sovereign interests: Antarctic matters are characterised by international co-operation, which the UK will seek to enhance. We also want to celebrate our long-standing connection with Antarctica and why it matters to the UK. The UK will continue to chair the commission for the conservation of Antarctic marine living resources to 2026 and to work with parties on the sustainable management of Antarctic marine resources.
Science: we will continue to invest in our world-leading polar infrastructure, ensuring that the British Antarctic Survey and UK researchers have the platforms they need to carry out the science we all need to protect Antarctica and the UK from the impacts of climate change, including our continued programme of infrastructure work at Rothera research station. The focus of UK science is on climate change, with projects looking at the rate of sea ice loss and glacier retreat, and ongoing work to drill ice cores, which can give a better understanding of a changing climate and the subsequent impacts for the world.
Environmental protection: the UK will continue to advocate for enhanced environmental protection for Antarctica, including for British heritage in the region, working with the UK Antarctic Heritage Trust. We will continue to push for greater protection of Shackleton’s famous ship Endurance, to identify sites for designation as Antarctic specially protected areas, and to advocate for specially protected species status for the iconic emperor penguin.
Ensuring peaceful and lawful use: we will continue to work closely with Antarctic partners to ensure we uphold the principles of the Antarctic treaty system, including the environmental protocol’s ban on commercial mineral resource activity. We will also work with parties on continued negotiations to develop a framework for the management of Antarctic tourism, ensuring it is safe and environmentally responsible, and does not unduly impact the Antarctic environment.
Through this new strategy, the UK will draw on our years of Antarctic experience and expertise to ensure Antarctica remains a continent preserved for peace and science.
We are publishing this strategy on Antarctica Day, which commemorates the signing of the Antarctic treaty in 1959. 66 years after this vital international agreement was signed, the UK is committing further to Antarctica. On this anniversary, we wish all of those working in Antarctica well.
[HCWS1113]
NATO Parliamentary Assembly: UK Delegation
Stephen Doughty Excerpts(7 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Stephen Doughty)
The hon. Member for Enfield North (Feryal Clark) has replaced the hon. Member for Barking (Nesil Caliskan) as a member of the United Kingdom delegation to the NATO Parliamentary Assembly.
[HCWS1037]
Parliamentary Assembly of the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe
Stephen Doughty Excerpts(7 months 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. Member for Sheffield Heeley (Louise Haigh) has been appointed as a full representative of the United Kingdom delegation to the Parliamentary Assembly of the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe in place of the hon. Member for High Peak (Jon Pearce).
The hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Helen Maguire) has been appointed as a full, representative of the United Kingdom delegation to the Parliamentary Assembly of the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe in place of the hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells (Mike Martin).
The hon. Member for Newton Abbott (Martin Wrigley) has been appointed as a substitute member of the United Kingdom delegation to the Parliamentary Assembly of the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe in place of the hon. Member for Lewes (James MacCleary).
[HCWS1035]
Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe: UK Delegation
Stephen Doughty Excerpts(7 months 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 Pennybont has been appointed as the Leader of the UK delegation to the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe in place of the right hon. Lord Touhig.
The hon. Member for Gedling (Michael Payne) has been appointed as a full member of the United Kingdom Delegation to the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe in place of the hon. Member for Lichfield (Dave Robertson).
[HCWS1038]
Financial Transparency: Overseas Territories
Stephen Doughty Excerpts(7 months 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)
I thank all right hon. and hon. Members, and particularly my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton West (Phil Brickell), for this well-informed and genuinely passionate debate. I have listened with great interest to a number of the examples that they raised. As he and others acknowledged, this issue is a personal priority for me, the Foreign Secretary, the Deputy Prime Minister and the Government as a whole. We must ensure the greatest standards of transparency, tackle illicit finance and tackle global corruption.
Members referred to our plans for the illicit finance summit next year, which I am working on closely with ministerial colleagues, and the anti-corruption strategy, which I have been working on closely with colleagues in the Home Office, the Treasury and elsewhere. We hope to present that strategy before the end of the year, and I hope that it will allay many of the broad concerns that have been raised by Members. I also pay tribute to Baroness Hodge for her incredible work as our anti-corruption champion. She has worked on these issues for many years, and I had the pleasure of working on them with her, but she is an independent voice, a challenge to the Government and a partner. She genuinely wants to find constructive solutions, and that has very much been the tenor of her work in the role so far.
I acknowledge the nuance in the contributions of right hon. and hon. Members on the subject of our overseas territories family and our wider British family. They recognised that substantial progress has been made in a number of them, that there are challenges in others and that not all overseas territories are heavily involved in financial services—in fact, some are barely involved at all. Some substantial progress has been made by the Government as a result of pressure and questioning not only from Members of this House but from the overseas territories, the wider NGO media and the global community. They want to see transparency and action against corruption and illicit finance for the purposes that were set out clearly by my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton West, as well as by many other right hon. and hon. Members.
Many Members drew connections between their constituencies, the priorities of the UK Government and the priorities of the Governments in the overseas territories. It is important to remember that lack of transparency, reputational damage, and the activities of very problematic individuals and serious and organised crime gangs, including sanctioned individuals, do damage not only in our constituencies but in the overseas territories. As the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir Andrew Mitchell) pointed out, that also does damage elsewhere in the world, particularly in the global south, Africa and other locations that, as he knows, I share his passion for.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bolton West set out very clearly how this problem impacts growth, housing and property, security and national security, and our national standing. That is why it matters, and that is why I know that this debate will not go away. The elected leaders in the overseas territories and their Governments will have heard clearly the strength of cross-party feeling, although I note with interest the absence of one party in this Chamber. I will leave Members to make their own minds up about that, but those Governments will see the strength of cross-party desire for action.
I am glad to say that we are taking an approach of co-operation and collaboration with our overseas territories. It is important to remind all Members of the constitutional relationship with our overseas territories. The Government and I respect their autonomy, decision making and elected Governments. They have extraordinarily robust debates in their own countries, and it is absolutely right that they should do so. I have set out my respect for them and my principles about working with them in partnership, and that will be reflected in the Joint Ministerial Council. Of course, the nature of the relationship with the Crown dependencies is distinct, and is for colleagues in the Ministry of Justice, Home Office and elsewhere to respond to, although I note the strong comments made on progress in the CDs.
It is also true that with our respect for their rights, the constitutional settlement and their autonomy, which I want to empower and strengthen, come responsibilities for overseas territories as part of the British family—responsibilities not only to the global rules-based order and the highest standards of financial transparency, but to their own populations and citizens. Hon. Members have made that point very clear.
Work in this area is vital. Illicit finance, corruption and kleptocracy are not abstract threats; they are direct challenges to our national security, our economy and the integrity of the global financial system. As has rightly been pointed out, these practices make it easier for criminal gangs to operate, undermine economies, make it easier to break sanctions and weaken the rule of law. The Government are leading the way when it comes to confronting these challenges, safeguarding our security and promoting integrity across the global financial system.
I was glad that hon. Members pointed out the excellent work on sanctions co-operation, including with the Cayman Islands. I had a chance to compliment the Cayman Islands on work on Operation Hektor on a recent visit there. We have also done excellent work with the British Virgin Islands, where our authorities have worked together on sanctions enforcement, and resource has gone into that. For all that to work effectively, of course, there needs to be transparency, because we cannot see what is really happening without understanding who owns what, where and how.
Sir Andrew Mitchell
Of course, the Minister is right about transparency—sunlight is the best disinfectant—but may I just pin him down on one point? He is heavy on collaboration and trying to get agreement, and he is right about that, but let us be absolutely clear that the constitutional relationship with the overseas territories and Crown dependencies is that Britain and Parliament are responsible for security issues and foreign affairs. These are security issues, and they relate directly to foreign matters. If the overseas territories do not agree to accept the will of Parliament, the Minister must make it clear to them that the Westminster Government will act via an Order in Council. That is not a voluntary thing; it is our duty. That is the nature of the constitutional arrangement, and the very clear legal opinion that Baroness Hodge and I secured underlines the point.
Stephen Doughty
The right hon. Gentleman is right about the legal and constitutional position. My position is that I want to work very closely and co-operatively, and that approach has succeeded in producing very welcome progress over the past year and a half. That is the way that I always try to approach our relationship with our friends in the overseas territories and the wider family. However, he is absolutely right, and the strength of feeling today should leave nobody in any doubt about the wider impact of the challenge and the concern, among many right hon. and hon. Members, about its direct impact in their communities. As I said, this is about the direct impact on citizens in the overseas territories themselves, as well as in the wider world.
I do not rule out any option in the future, but I hope that at first we can keep to and deliver on the commitments that were made at the Joint Ministerial Council last year. Some of those have been met; some have not. I have been very candid about that with the current president of the UK Overseas Territories Association, and have had very direct conversations with Premiers and others.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bolton West asked three specific questions. He asked about a visit with Baroness Hodge. I do not want to divulge our personal conversations, but he can be absolutely sure that we have met to discuss her findings, which she shared in great candour, as one would expect. I will take those on board. My expectation is that we will discuss this matter at the Joint Ministerial Council. The Premiers and elected representatives understand our position. Our expectation on fully public registers of beneficial ownership has not changed; nor has our expectation about the functioning of legitimate interest access registers in the meantime. I can assure my hon. Friend and others that we are engaging in forensic detail on how each of those works. For example, I had constructive conversations with the Premier of the Cayman Islands on my recent visit about the progress that it is making, and I expect further improvements in the months to come.
We follow these matters extremely closely and offer technical support and other advice on how we can work together co-operatively to deliver the most effective registers. For a register to be in place, with the necessary legislation, is all well and good, but if it does not function effectively because of fees or other barriers to its usability in practice, that is a serious concern. Obviously, there are territories that are yet to introduce such steps; the BVI, in particular, was mentioned.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bolton West asked whether I would meet his colleague from the AUGB and I would be happy to do that. The links to Ukraine that many right hon. and hon. Members mentioned are examples of why this matters. The Government’s recent action on Cambodian scam centres was mentioned. That was a shocking scam involving fraud against our constituents up and down this country, which involved property in London and involved a UK overseas territory, the BVI. I know the Premier of the BVI shares our concern about tackling that type of activity. It is in all our interests that we have the transparency to enable more of these scams—more of this shocking activity—to be exposed.
Many links were made to property, including by my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington and Bayswater (Joe Powell). I have seen examples in my own constituency of Cardiff South and Penarth, where residents faced with issues relating to fire and building safety have been unable to work out the original beneficial owners of large apartment buildings so that they can take appropriate action to ensure the safety of the buildings and their residents. Such issues impact every aspect of all our daily lives, including, as I said, in the overseas territories.
The BVI was mentioned extensively, so I want to be clear that the Government recognise some of the challenges. In August, a vessel owned by a BVI-registered entity transferred 2 million barrels of Iranian oil, which was delivered to China. Also this year, BVI-registered entities were discovered in the corporate chains of at least three sanctioned Russian oligarchs who own £35 million-worth of UK property, undoubtedly some of it in constituencies represented in this room. BVI-registered entities accounted for over 90% of identified suspicious funds invested through OTs into UK property between 2016 and 2024. We also have the challenge of inactive or dissolved BVI companies owning UK property. That creates substantial legal challenges around bona vacantia and ownerless assets, which many of us will have encountered in our constituencies.
As was rightly pointed out, in the three decades to 2018 more than 1,100 BVI-registered companies featured in corruption cases around the world. I know the seriousness with which the Premier and the Government there take these issues. I want to work with them in addressing them, because they impact all of us and they impact the BVI’s reputation, but to do that we need transparency and progress.
Colleagues made many important contributions and I will not be able to respond to them all in the time I have today, but I note the serious concerns about Mr Abramovich raised by my hon. Friend the Member for St Helens South and Whiston (Ms Rimmer). I am not able to comment on individual tax matters at the Dispatch Box, but we remain committed to ensuring that the proceeds of the sale of Chelsea reach humanitarian causes in Ukraine. We are deeply frustrated that it has not yet been possible to reach an agreement with Mr Abramovich and his representatives. The door for negotiations remains open, but we are fully prepared to pursue the matter through the courts if required, as we have said on a number of occasions recently.
Important points were raised, including by my hon. Friend the Member for Salford (Rebecca Long Bailey), about HMRC. I am sure she will be able to raise her points with the relevant Ministers, but what she said about why transparency principles matter was very powerful. My hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth East (Tom Hayes) spoke powerfully about the impact on public services, on housing and on the high street, and about the challenges for our constituents. We have touched on all those points of nexus during the debate.
Financial secrecy is the oxygen that allows illicit finance to thrive and sanctions breaches to go undetected; it creates blind spots. It is, of course, a transnational problem. Dirty money pushes up property prices, making it harder for people to buy homes. Overseas corruption and illicit finance undermine economies, prop up kleptocratic regimes and threaten democracy. As the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield made clear, it is estimated that African countries alone lose around $90 billion a year in illicit capital flows. That is more than they receive in development assistance.
Jim Shannon
I thank the Minister for his detailed response to the issues that we raised. I mentioned the properties in Belfast that were allegedly held by certain people. Will he ensure that there is a concerted plan, driven from Westminster, for Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales, to ensure that those people are held accountable wherever they may be in the United Kingdom?
Stephen Doughty
I absolutely agree. The hon. Member spoke powerfully for his constituency of Strangford, as he always does. The fact that this issue impacts every part of the United Kingdom has been made very clear during the debate.
I want to update the House on where there is progress and where challenges remain. At the last Joint Ministerial Council, overseas territories made important commitments to improve corporate transparency by widening access to their registers of beneficial ownership. As I set out in my written statement to the House on 22 July, all territories are making progress on their commitments to implement the registers, and that progress is welcome, but we need to keep up the pace and to challenge in cases where there has been real back-marking on the issue.
I compliment St Helena, which launched its fully public register on 30 June 2025. The Falklands has shown me its draft legislation and it will have that implemented by next year—there are some capacity constraints for its officials. As has been mentioned, Gibraltar has had a fully publicly register since 2020 without any damage to its economy; the Chief Minister speaks powerfully about that issue. I compliment Montserrat, which has had a public register since 2024. The Caymans launched its legitimate interest access register in February 2025, which allows access by a range of people, including journalists. Turks and Caicos launched an LIA register on 30 June, we understand that Anguilla will implement within the next few months, and we have talked much about Bermuda and the BVI.
I want to reassure all right hon. and hon. Members that this issue remains a major priority for the Government. The overseas territories will have heard this debate, and the strength of feeling. Our commitment on this issue sits alongside our commitments to the relationship with the overseas territories more broadly, and to tackling corruption and illicit finance globally, which will be highlighted by the summits that were mentioned.
Stephen Doughty
I am conscious that I need to leave time for my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton West to wind up the debate, so I will not.
I want to reassure Members that this issue remains a major priority for me and other Ministers, and I am very happy to continue to engage with Members on it. I hope that we can celebrate the progress as well as providing resolute challenge.
Council of Europe and the European Convention on Human Rights
Stephen Doughty Excerpts(7 months 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)
Thank you, Mr Mundell. It is a genuine pleasure to see you in the Chair today.
I thank all hon. Members who have taken part in this lively and passionate debate. I particularly thank my hon. Friend the Member for Stourbridge (Cat Eccles) for securing it, and for her powerful list of the work done by the Council of Europe on everything from Ukraine to the death penalty. She mentioned the role of the ECHR, giving examples from Hillsborough to the Good Friday agreement. I thank her and other Members here today who are delegates to the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe; it is a pleasure to engage with them regularly, and their work is crucial to our national interests.
In stark contrast to the polemical nonsense that we have just heard from the shadow Minister, my hon. Friend made a fundamental point, which is that fundamentally the ECHR and indeed the Council of Europe are British projects. It is the treaty of London that established them. I was very proud to see the treaty of London on display at the European Political Community summit two weeks after we came to power last year—and to see it at Blenheim Palace, with its strong historical associations to the man the shadow Minister was praising. I think he would have turned in his grave at some of the things that the shadow Minister was saying.
I also want to issue a general challenge: things cannot be set in aspic; they must evolve and maintain the confidence of all the British people and respond to the challenges and genuine issues that we face today. The point many colleagues made about the company that we keep is very important. It is not surprising to me at all to see Reform on the side of the likes of Russia and Belarus. It was very sad to hear some of the comments the shadow Minister made and that he was proud to support the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage). Perhaps, like so many Tories, he is simply preparing himself for a rebrand under a new banner.
There were some strong speeches about the perils of leaving the ECHR and challenging the many myths and fake news, some of which we sadly heard in this debate. One of those is about the democratic nature of the Council of Europe, which is one of the most democratic bodies in Europe. The European Court of Human Rights is elected by the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, including the UK judge, which flies in the face of what we heard from the shadow Minister and some others.
Other important points were made which have not previously had an adequate airing in debates on this subject. The arguments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Camborne and Redruth (Perran Moon) about the impact on national minorities were particularly strong. The ECHR ensures that all convention rights are enjoyed without discrimination, including on grounds such as race, language, religion or association with a national minority. Those crucial protections for national minorities could be lost if we left the ECHR. That is hugely important to Cornish and Welsh people and to those who speak our minority languages in the UK, including Cornish, Welsh, Gaelic and others. That is often forgotten.
Britain had a crucial and foundational role in establishing these institutions. Our pioneering Labour Foreign Secretary, Ernest Bevin, was a strong advocate for the body; Sir Winston Churchill was another leading proponent of the Council, while the British lawyer Sir David Maxwell Fyfe played a central role in drafting the text of the convention. The UK was among the first states to ratify the convention. We are proud of the moral, political and legal leadership that Britain showed in creating the organisation and drafting a convention that was designed to help Europe recover from the horrors of the second world war. I know that there is controversy today, but the Government fundamentally believe that since their creation both the Council of Europe and the ECHR have delivered significant benefits to British citizens, and continue to do so. We are not afraid to say that.
The Lib Dem spokesperson, the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Dr Pinkerton), spoke powerfully about the wider work of the Council of Europe and the ECHR. There are more than 200 conventions under the Council of Europe, tackling terrorism, cyber-crime and corruption, countering money laundering, protecting children from sexual exploitation, confronting violence against women and girls and combating human trafficking and organised crime. It ensures that medicines are safe and effective, encourages economic growth, good governance and the rule of law, and supports freedom of expression and ethical media.
Linsey Farnsworth
On the subject of criminal co-operation, before I came into Parliament I was an international liaison prosecutor. My job was to get evidence from overseas and help to get people overseas in Europe extradited to the UK for prosecution. That work relies on the ECHR, which underpins that legislation. Does the Minister share my concern about what some Members in this Chamber are proposing? Does he agree that they should be the ones who talk to a victim of rape about why her case cannot go forward because we cannot get the evidence from a European country, or tell a mother that we cannot get the murderer of her son back because we have left the ECHR?
Stephen Doughty
My hon. Friend makes some incredibly powerful and strong points, with which I concur. She highlights the very serious consequences that could come were we to leave the ECHR.
Before I turn to some of the other specific points, I want to compliment the wider work of the Council of Europe and the Parliamentary Assembly in expelling Russia following the illegal invasion of Ukraine, supporting Ukraine and seeking to hold Russia to account for the atrocities it has committed. I also compliment its work on the register of damage, the international claims commissions and the special tribunal for the crime of aggression against Ukraine established under the auspices of the Council. Those, along with the activities that my hon. Friend just raised, all matter to the British public and to British public life.
Of course, the ECHR plays a crucial role in our constitutional framework. It is an important pillar of the devolution settlements, it underpins the guarantees in the Good Friday agreement, and it supports the safety and security of British citizens by facilitating cross-border law enforcement and judicial co-operation. The ECHR is often presented as some sort of foreign imposition that does nothing to help British people. That literally could not be further from the truth. It has contributed significantly to the protection and enforcement of human rights and equality standards in the UK. We are very proud that a Labour Government incorporated the ECHR into domestic law—that was, of course, a decision of Westminster—by introducing the Human Rights Act 1998, which came into force 25 years ago last month.
The ECHR has had a massive impact. ECHR rulings in 1982 led to the end of corporal punishment in schools in the UK and to the decriminalisation of homosexuality in Northern Ireland. As has been referenced, in 1999, following a landmark case brought by two British servicepeople dismissed from the armed forces simply for being gay, an ECHR ruling led to the law being changed to allow members of the armed forces to be open about their sexuality. Another very powerful example concerns the impact of the Hillsborough disaster, which the Prime Minister has done much to lead on in recent months. The families of the 97 who lost their lives relied on the ECHR’s right to life provision when they campaigned for the truth. My hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Ms Creasy) spoke powerfully in this debate, including about the case of John Warboys. The benefits are not just historical; they affect live and significant cases that affect British people today.
Last, I turn to the question of reform. The strength of the convention is that, while the ECHR explicitly safeguards those at risk of harm, exclusion or discrimination, helps ordinary people to challenge unfair laws, and pushes Governments to respect rights, it is also entirely reasonable and appropriate for Governments consistently to consider whether the law, including the ECHR, is evolving to meet modern-day challenges, including on irregular migration, asylum and criminal justice. The ECHR was never designed to be set in stone and frozen forever in the time that it was created. That is why we are working with and engaging with European partners to look at ways in which reform can go forward, and why we are reviewing the way in which the ECHR is interpreted in UK domestic law.
Stephen Doughty
I will not, because I want to give time for my hon. Friend the Member for Stourbridge to wind up.
We need to ensure that we retain public confidence in our policies related to the ECHR, so we must look at where we can reform and evolve. Last week, the secretary-general of the Council of Europe was clear that he was open to discuss potential changes or adaptations—my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Steve Yemm) raised that important point. Other Council of Europe member states share the UK’s view that the ECHR needs to evolve. We are talking to them about what might be possible, but we will not leave the ECHR. We recognise the hugely important role that it plays, and the hugely important role that the Council of Europe plays for people in this country. This is something that Britain was involved in at the start. It is not a foreign imposition; it plays an important role in the life of the British people. I thank all hon. Members for their contributions to this debate.