Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill

Debate between Stephen Doughty and Scott Arthur

Monday 13th April 2026 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Doughty]

I will start by thanking the right hon. Lady, who has rightly scrutinised many different aspects of this matter over many months. I have come dutifully to answer many questions, I have met with her privately, and the subject has been scrutinised by many Committees. It was right to update the House today on these developments, and I am glad that she acknowledges that point.

Of course, it is not for the Government simply to choose easy paths. It is for the Government to choose the right path: the path that is in the interests of Britain and our national security, and that of our allies. At the heart of this is a fundamental question. The Opposition know that there is a huge challenge. They knew that there was a problem, which is why they started the process. Throughout all the exchanges we have had, they have never been able to answer that simple question.

I cannot recall a time when we have seen so much misinformation and, quite frankly, negligent disregard for the national interests and security of the British people. It is regrettable that the official Opposition and indeed the Reform party—I see that only one of its Members has turned up today—have been at the heart of this. Of course, they will say that this is just politics and that the Government should be thick-skinned, but quite frankly the British public deserve better.

The national interest is what drives this Government and our national security, as the Conservatives well knew, which is why they started the process. We have seen frankly ludicrous disinformation about the operations of the base, about the genuine threats that it faced, and about the security provisions in the treaty, which of course we strengthened. We also seen it about the costs: no matter how often they give false figures, that does not make them any more accurate. We have also seen it about the views of Chagossians—I accept that they are wide and varied but, conveniently, the Opposition always ignore the views of the significant numbers of Chagossian communities and groups who feel very differently about the treaty and have supported it since the start. Indeed, we have seen it about the protection of the environment.

The Opposition operate in a state of convenient amnesia, but they know the reality, they knew the jeopardy facing the base and they know that they presided over 11 rounds of negotiations. They published it in ministerial statements and in records of meetings with the Mauritian Prime Minister. They know, too, that the treaty signed by this Government was born of their policy choices and their negotiation mandates. As ever, the Opposition cannot run away fast enough from their record in government when it suits their tiresome politicking. The British people are not fooled. They can see the hypocrisy, and they deserve better.

[Dr Scott Arthur (Edinburgh South West) (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for working over many months with our allies on this issue to reach agreement in our national interest and theirs. He has remained consistent on this issue and has given many updates on it. I wish I could say the same about the Opposition. Their short memory, their flip-flopping and their complete disregard for national security are very similar to the position they have got themselves in with Iran—very, very similar. They are laughing in the face of real threats to our national security.

I am actually quite concerned, because it seems to me that the status quo is not in our national interest. What does being without a treaty mean for the long-term access to the base, for us and for our allies?

[Stephen Doughty]

My hon. Friend sets out the fundamental issue: the risks to the operation of the base, which the Opposition knew all along. That is why they started the process, to which we have responded with this treaty, which protects our security and that of our allies. I will not speculate about the coming of those risks, but we know that we need to put things on a secure footing. We know that the treaty was the best way to do that. We know that this was agreed under two Administrations across the United States in an inter-agency process. We continue to believe that it is the right way forward, and we will announce our business in the usual way.

Sudan: Protection of Civilians

Debate between Stephen Doughty and Scott Arthur

Thursday 30th October 2025 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Doughty]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to talk about displaced people—my right hon. Friend the Member for Oxford East (Anneliese Dodds) mentioned Tawila. I can assure him that our humanitarian aid is targeted to have the biggest impact, and we look very closely at the situation of displaced people, particularly those who have also experienced atrocities, and especially women and girls who may have experienced sexual violence. That will remain at the top of our agenda.

[Dr Scott Arthur (Edinburgh South West) (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for his statement—it is good to have somebody at the Dispatch Box who both understands and cares about this issue. We have spent no shortage of time in this Chamber talking about the conflicts in the middle east and in Ukraine, but I think all of us are guilty of not talking enough about Sudan. The International Criminal Court is investigating some reports of atrocities in Sudan. Does the Minister feel that that investigation should extend to those who knowingly export weapons into the conflict?

[Stephen Doughty]

My hon. Friend is right to raise the issue of accountability. I have already referred to our support for the work of the International Criminal Court and, indeed, wider investigations into allegations of atrocities—we work to support non-governmental organisations and others. I must also highlight the work of the media in this space, particularly the investigations of the BBC and other media organisations. As I have said, we keep our export licences under close review, and we take allegations very seriously. I can assure him that I am speaking to officials about these matters.

British Indian Ocean Territory: Sovereignty

Debate between Stephen Doughty and Scott Arthur

Wednesday 2nd July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Doughty]

In the interests of time, I refer the right hon. Member to the detailed evidence that I gave in the House of Lords on this matter the other day, including on the legal circumstances. He knows the risk to the operation of the base in the medium and short term, and he recognises the risk of a binding legal judgment, which we believed to be inevitable. His Government knew that, which is why they started the process. He may not have been able to conclude the deal—I accept that, Mr. Speaker—but the previous Government went through 11 rounds of negotiations because they recognised the importance of doing this deal. They knew that securing the facility was crucial to our national security. We put our national security and securing this base first, and that has met with the approval of the United States and other Five Eyes allies.

[Dr Scott Arthur (Edinburgh South West) (Lab)]

I have to admit that I am rather confused, because I am sure that the shadow Foreign Secretary was in the Cabinet when the decision was made to start these negotiations. Too often, we focus on the military aspects of this deal, but can the Minister confirm that it will also end a dangerous, irregular migration route into the UK?

[Stephen Doughty]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. This Government took early action—even before the conclusion of the deal—to ensure that that route was closed down by the memorandum of understanding that we reached with St Helena, for which I again thank St Helena. Again, Mr. Speaker, I was rightly scrutinised by this House on that. My hon. Friend is absolutely right on that point, and that is why we have done this deal.

Ukraine War: London Talks

Debate between Stephen Doughty and Scott Arthur

Thursday 24th April 2025 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Doughty]

I was able to discuss some of the practical steps that we are taking on this important issue just a few weeks ago with the Deputy Foreign Minister of Ukraine and, indeed, with many of the organisations that are working on it. We are exploring further ways in which we can assist; we have already done a huge amount, and I look forward to seeing steps forward taken in due course. I am very happy to update the hon. Gentleman in writing with further details.

[Dr Scott Arthur (Edinburgh South West) (Lab)]

I am ashamed to admit that I have not yet been sanctioned by Russia—I am feeling a little bit lonely. Clearly, I have to do more to call out Putin’s barbaric war crimes. This House is always at its most united and its most passionate when we are talking about the need for a just peace in Ukraine, so can I ask the Minister very delicately whether he is convinced that all our international allies understand that for a peace to be lasting, it has to be just?

[Stephen Doughty]

I think that is well understood, and it is a point that we continue to underline in all of our conversations, whether across the Atlantic, across Europe or with other parties internationally. It is why we have supported the important work on the special tribunal on the crime of aggression; it is why we are supporting action on justice for crimes that have potentially been committed in Ukraine; and it is why we are continuing to support key institutions within Ukraine on these issues and have worked within the Council of Europe on these issues, too. We have been very clear that justice must come alongside sustainability and Ukraine’s ability to deter future aggression and of course to defend itself and its people right now.

St Helena: UK Immigration

Debate between Stephen Doughty and Scott Arthur

Monday 21st October 2024 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Doughty]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his questions. As I said, the Foreign Secretary answered questions about the agreement with Mauritius on BIOT earlier, but the hon. Gentleman asks for further details of the arrangement with St Helena. Under the arrangement, if any migrants arrive on BIOT in the future, they will be transferred to St Helena. They will remain free to depart, and to return to their country of origin, but they will not be able to stay on BIOT. St Helena would take responsibility for accommodating those individuals and, if appropriate, processing asylum claims.

The hon. Gentleman mentions existing migrants on the island. They are not included in this arrangement, and we continue to work at pace to find long-term, durable solutions. I will not go into the details; that would be inappropriate, given the legal complexities around the small group of individuals who are there. On his point about the media coverage of alleged hacks, those are subject to an ongoing police investigation in Mauritius, so I do not want to comment, but my understanding is that the allegations are historical, rather than related to the recent negotiation period.

[Dr Scott Arthur (Edinburgh South West) (Lab)]

I really welcome the statement, and the clarity that has come with it. Who will ultimately be responsible for people when they find themselves in St Helena?

[Stephen Doughty]

I thank my hon. Friend for his question. Fundamentally, as a result of this agreement, St Helena has agreed to take responsibility for any theoretical migrants who arrive, but I draw him back to what I said earlier: Mauritius would take responsibility for any migrants who arrived after the agreement of the treaty, which we will seek to finalise following parliamentary scrutiny.